0
   

Supermath, string theory and superstring theory

 
 
John Jones
 
  1  
Reply Sun 11 Sep, 2005 01:51 pm
raprap wrote:
Math is not particularly complex. As a language the grammar, dictionary and syntax is relatively simple and straightforward. It's many of the concepts that tend toward the abstract. As a result I feel for you, it must be very frustrating that nature tends to track many abstract mathematical concepts.

Actually this is a concept of Engineering--the use of abstractions as a substitute for reality--A Scientist does the reverse, rejecting abstractions that do not fit reality--See Penrose reference.

BTW, JJ if you can come up with a language that can convey the same rigor, then "go for it" you'll die being remembered for millennia. Asimov (the talented writer), Einstein, Russell and Hawking have all tried and in some cases have skated close to explaining science. But they are constantly being caught by those who prefer the mysticism of a Chaka or John Calvin.

However, there is an interesting unifying polytome I'd recommend. "The Laws of Reality" by Sir Roger Penrose. ---A caveat though! The people that actually understand everything Penrose is trying to unify could share a New York cab.

Rap


As far as I thought, mathematics has no concepts. That is to say, mathematics never presented us with concepts. It is difficult to see how a sign can present a fully fledged concept. We read into arithmetic a useful concept(s) or metaphysics, and then call it mathematics.
Where did people get the odd idea that maths presents us with concepts? I don't want to hear that sort of thing. It's very, very silly.
0 Replies
 
MZathras
 
  1  
Reply Sun 11 Sep, 2005 04:23 pm
I want to respond to Post: 1562335 - I was late getting back.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MZathras wrote:
I have been watching the experts four forty years and all they seem to do is generate new scaffoldings to get the results to support their perceived observations. Each new then has to be reconciled with the others. By not stepping outside of the box and start by logically establishing what things are, that is, which ones are real or not, we will continue to fail in the reconciliation efforts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Its often the other way round actually. Hard data can emerge which doesn't fit theories and hence theories must emerge to reconcile observation. That is the basis of all science. Tune it until it all holds, there is nothing mystical about it. If the models are incomplete of course new models emerge and get tested. The models don't have to fit every model in existence - they must however account for the underlying data supporting each model. Now when you accuse folk of not stepping outside the box that is being naive; it's exactly what they are doing. Be careful of accusing scientific theory of disregarding basic scientific methods or scientific premise in constructing its models and verifying its predictive powers, this is exactly the acid test each new model faces.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The term I used "scaffolding" was a metaphor to describe a methodology, theory, or model used by the person presenting some finding of data they had determined. My point is that they are using the data to drive the architecture of their new scaffolding. I think we both agree that this is the methodology of science. What I am trying to point out is that a lot of assumptions were made by some very prominent people in the past. Some of these are what I am questioning. I am trying to still be respectful to the people but I think some of these scaffolds have taken us to a dead end. That is what I meant by stepping out of the box and looking anew.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


MZathras wrote:
It is obvious even to a novice that energy is being consumed when "matter" is at 0 degree K. even though we have not achieved that temperature yet. This tells me there is an energy field that is flowing to the position of the "matter". And oscillations peculiar and unique to different particles can be measured. It only stands to reason that the particle itself is nothing more than oscillations of the energy that flows toward the position (present or future) of the particular particle type.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Energy and matter are simply different forms of a deeper underlying reality. We can reach temperatures within a millionth of a degree of absolute zero - see bose-einstein condensates research. What energy do you find is consumed? What energy flow do you see travelling? Can you give a link to this situation. What particle are you refering to? Remember particles and energy carriers can only be discussed within dimensional frame of reference (e.g. SuSy) as a field effect - what is yours?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What energy do you find is consumed? What energy flow do you see traveling?
I am referring to the ZPE contained in the ZPF. There is a large amount of empty space inside and atom relative to the size of the particles that comprise the atom. You are right we don't know much about what is going on there in reality. I believe that the universe is filled with an energy that can be stratified, that is, it is more or less dense depending on position of observation. Observations we are not able to make directly at such small dimensions, as you have pointed out. Never the less the energy is there and does flow from potentials of greater to lesser. I refer to that general very dense energy field as the Zero point Field and is made up by the Zero Point Energy. It is the smallest dimension in the real world and is much smaller than any particle you refer to, as I believe they are just made up by the collection of the ZPE pulled from the ZPF. This is the energy flow I am referring. I am also proposing that the study and defining of its behavior is the unification we all are seeking. The observations that all the very smart and talented people you refer to of particle or quantum effects they observe, are in fact engaged in the process of describing the properties of the ZPE and ZPF. I believe it is the only fundamental force and is responsible for producing all the effects that the physics community accepts as fundamental forces. This is why so much confusion exists and no unification will occur.

Please note I am trying very hard not to include math to describe this phenomena.

All the rest of your responses to my comments are well noted. But I believe are mis-guided because you are looking for unification at a larger level than I am referring.

Please reread my previous comments and keep in mind that I see the understanding of the flow of ZPF and the ability of ZPE to oscillate and produce force effects at higher levels is the underlying cause of all the physics disciplines that have been developed by the different physics guilds.

One last thing I would like to throw in is that I believe ZPF comes in two forms. One is expanded and forms the time dimension effects. The other is condensed where time and dimension do not exist. Hawking may have been wrong (what blasphemy), the center of black holes could be ZPF pushed past the speed of light which then condenses, excuse the over simplification. That would make all black holes connected and singular. Maybe condensed space has a "critical mass" and is responsible for the big bang.

If a very small piece of condensed ZPE is contained inside the 6d of the Higgs model inside an electron that could explain quirky motion at a distance (remote connection if you will) with regards to spin.

Remember Ocums Razor.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
0 Replies
 
John Jones
 
  1  
Reply Sun 11 Sep, 2005 04:49 pm
MZathras wrote:
I want to respond to Post: 1562335 - I was late getting back.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MZathras wrote:
I have been watching the experts four forty years and all they seem to do is generate new scaffoldings to get the results to support their perceived observations. Each new then has to be reconciled with the others. By not stepping outside of the box and start by logically establishing what things are, that is, which ones are real or not, we will continue to fail in the reconciliation efforts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Its often the other way round actually. Hard data can emerge which doesn't fit theories and hence theories must emerge to reconcile observation. That is the basis of all science. Tune it until it all holds, there is nothing mystical about it. If the models are incomplete of course new models emerge and get tested. The models don't have to fit every model in existence - they must however account for the underlying data supporting each model. Now when you accuse folk of not stepping outside the box that is being naive; it's exactly what they are doing. Be careful of accusing scientific theory of disregarding basic scientific methods or scientific premise in constructing its models and verifying its predictive powers, this is exactly the acid test each new model faces.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The term I used "scaffolding" was a metaphor to describe a methodology, theory, or model used by the person presenting some finding of data they had determined. My point is that they are using the data to drive the architecture of their new scaffolding. I think we both agree that this is the methodology of science. What I am trying to point out is that a lot of assumptions were made by some very prominent people in the past. Some of these are what I am questioning. I am trying to still be respectful to the people but I think some of these scaffolds have taken us to a dead end. That is what I meant by stepping out of the box and looking anew.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


MZathras wrote:
It is obvious even to a novice that energy is being consumed when "matter" is at 0 degree K. even though we have not achieved that temperature yet. This tells me there is an energy field that is flowing to the position of the "matter". And oscillations peculiar and unique to different particles can be measured. It only stands to reason that the particle itself is nothing more than oscillations of the energy that flows toward the position (present or future) of the particular particle type.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Energy and matter are simply different forms of a deeper underlying reality. We can reach temperatures within a millionth of a degree of absolute zero - see bose-einstein condensates research. What energy do you find is consumed? What energy flow do you see travelling? Can you give a link to this situation. What particle are you refering to? Remember particles and energy carriers can only be discussed within dimensional frame of reference (e.g. SuSy) as a field effect - what is yours?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What energy do you find is consumed? What energy flow do you see traveling?
I am referring to the ZPE contained in the ZPF. There is a large amount of empty space inside and atom relative to the size of the particles that comprise the atom. You are right we don't know much about what is going on there in reality. I believe that the universe is filled with an energy that can be stratified, that is, it is more or less dense depending on position of observation. Observations we are not able to make directly at such small dimensions, as you have pointed out. Never the less the energy is there and does flow from potentials of greater to lesser. I refer to that general very dense energy field as the Zero point Field and is made up by the Zero Point Energy. It is the smallest dimension in the real world and is much smaller than any particle you refer to, as I believe they are just made up by the collection of the ZPE pulled from the ZPF. This is the energy flow I am referring. I am also proposing that the study and defining of its behavior is the unification we all are seeking. The observations that all the very smart and talented people you refer to of particle or quantum effects they observe, are in fact engaged in the process of describing the properties of the ZPE and ZPF. I believe it is the only fundamental force and is responsible for producing all the effects that the physics community accepts as fundamental forces. This is why so much confusion exists and no unification will occur.

Please note I am trying very hard not to include math to describe this phenomena.

All the rest of your responses to my comments are well noted. But I believe are mis-guided because you are looking for unification at a larger level than I am referring.

Please reread my previous comments and keep in mind that I see the understanding of the flow of ZPF and the ability of ZPE to oscillate and produce force effects at higher levels is the underlying cause of all the physics disciplines that have been developed by the different physics guilds.

One last thing I would like to throw in is that I believe ZPF comes in two forms. One is expanded and forms the time dimension effects. The other is condensed where time and dimension do not exist. Hawking may have been wrong (what blasphemy), the center of black holes could be ZPF pushed past the speed of light which then condenses, excuse the over simplification. That would make all black holes connected and singular. Maybe condensed space has a "critical mass" and is responsible for the big bang.

If a very small piece of condensed ZPE is contained inside the 6d of the Higgs model inside an electron that could explain quirky motion at a distance (remote connection if you will) with regards to spin.

Remember Ocums Razor.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------


Do mathematicians resolve to make a fit theory? Or do they resolve to make a fit maths?
If the latter is the case, and it is the case, then all mathematicians are concerned with is contradiction and equivalence of number.
0 Replies
 
MZathras
 
  1  
Reply Sun 11 Sep, 2005 05:06 pm
JJ

Did you just agree with me?
0 Replies
 
g day
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Sep, 2005 06:21 am
You can never tell with JJ - he has a profound ability to see things other can't. If he agreed with me then I'd suddenly want to double or triple check my findings.

Bad science filters results before confidence testing them - so its tampering with the signal to noise ration of analysing what is occuring and how well it fits any given model of reality. Good science, especially where the math is better understood later on often corrects this.

Maths has plenty of concepts - for instance numbers (real or imaginary) are a perfect example of a mathematical concept. If you don't believe in imaginary numbers - well solder an capicator to a small light bulb, run a high frequency low voltage (say 3 volt) alternating potential across it and pick it up. After you have been thrown across the room by a 100 volt resonance imaginary voltage that the you'll experience you might re-think your stance on concepts.

ZPE is really I see just one take on the dynamics of our spacetime reality as you get well below sub-atomic scales distances. Its a very fascinating field were the final answers will be absolutely compelling to review. I have no worries which models interest you - followed well they will prove their worth with time.
0 Replies
 
John Jones
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Sep, 2005 04:10 pm
MZathras wrote:
JJ

Did you just agree with me?


Don't know.
Not where you indicate that objects, such as electrons, are found, and not made (if objects are not found then we are prevented from asking things like 'what really is the electron?').
When mathematicians claim that maths can reveal the world, then they are also claiming that the world presents us with ready-made definitions of its objects.
0 Replies
 
JGoldman10
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Sep, 2005 04:41 pm
JJ, "gravitons" are the hypothetical particles that would link the Theory of Relativity with Quantum Mechanics-explaining how gravity could exist in both formats.
0 Replies
 
MZathras
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Sep, 2005 06:49 pm
John Jones wrote:
MZathras wrote:
JJ

Did you just agree with me?


Don't know.
Not where you indicate that objects, such as electrons, are found, and not made (if objects are not found then we are prevented from asking things like 'what really is the electron?').
When mathematicians claim that maths can reveal the world, then they are also claiming that the world presents us with ready-made definitions of its objects.


My point is that particles (last I heard there were 23) of what ever type are not fundamental pieces. They are all made up of ZPE that flows from the ZPF. This means they are collections of ZPE at specific points in space time that oscillate. What the oscillations are determines what is the particle type.

Notice I am not trying to define those oscillations or combinations of oscillations at this point. I am trying to point out that these oscillations absorb ZPE from the ZPF. This causes a movement or flow of the ZPF and this affects other oscillations in its path causing the second oscillation to move with the flow. That is the effect I call gravity. Also note that with concentration of ZPE larger than the average found in the ZPF new effects or forces manifest that are stronger than gravity. But I won't go there yet.

Electrons are made of ZPE that oscillates. Since it moves at the speed of light for the most part, you can not find just one (they like to be in pairs)and know where it is. You can only know it's general area by disturbing it with something. I would suggest that the Higgs model which includes two weakons, these draw ZPE from the ZPF at an offset location beside the electron, and so the electron is constantly moving to that future position to obtain it's ZPE or it will collapse.

This would infer to me that ZPE generally moves at the speed of light thru the average ZPF.

You can't find an electron but I believe you can make one (no two), if you could cause the right type of oscillations to occur at a given point.
0 Replies
 
g day
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Sep, 2005 01:32 am
23 particles? Try in the hundreds so far, and this doesn't count theorised s-particles, or heavy, slow high-energy particles above 180GeV, look up CERN or here for the basics:

http://particleadventure.org/particleadventure/frameless/chart_print.html

and here - follow haldron decay - its a fun javascript showing lots of haldron decays when you collide the fundamental building blocks of existence at ultra high energies:

http://pdg.lbl.gov/fireworks/intro_eng.swf
0 Replies
 
John Jones
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Sep, 2005 11:19 am
JGoldman10 wrote:
JJ, "gravitons" are the hypothetical particles that would link the Theory of Relativity with Quantum Mechanics-explaining how gravity could exist in both formats.


Let me get this straight, and tell me if I am wrong. I will put it like a question in an IQ test:

Q. Fill in the missing word:
Matter....information....Mind,
Relativistic gravity...______....QM gravity.
If the missing word is 'gravitons' then its a bit fishy.

That's probably obscure. What I mean is that there are words we employ that are paradigmatic oxymorons. I suggest that graviton and information are two such words: each of these words tries to bring together two incompatible paradigms, in a way that appears to resolve the incompatibility. For example, it is not clear whether the word 'information' refers to mind or matter. This lack of clarity enables the word to be used in cases that appear to resolve the incompatible notions of mind and matter. We say, for example, 'the mind processes information', or 'the brain processes information'. The word 'information' tricks us into glossing over logical confusions. I am suggesting that 'graviton' is employed similarly.
0 Replies
 
John Jones
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Sep, 2005 11:51 am
MZathras wrote:
John Jones wrote:
MZathras wrote:
JJ

Did you just agree with me?


Don't know.
Not where you indicate that objects, such as electrons, are found, and not made (if objects are not found then we are prevented from asking things like 'what really is the electron?').
When mathematicians claim that maths can reveal the world, then they are also claiming that the world presents us with ready-made definitions of its objects.


My point is that particles (last I heard there were 23) of what ever type are not fundamental pieces. They are all made up of ZPE that flows from the ZPF. This means they are collections of ZPE at specific points in space time that oscillate. What the oscillations are determines what is the particle type.

Notice I am not trying to define those oscillations or combinations of oscillations at this point. I am trying to point out that these oscillations absorb ZPE from the ZPF. This causes a movement or flow of the ZPF and this affects other oscillations in its path causing the second oscillation to move with the flow. That is the effect I call gravity. Also note that with concentration of ZPE larger than the average found in the ZPF new effects or forces manifest that are stronger than gravity. But I won't go there yet.

Electrons are made of ZPE that oscillates. Since it moves at the speed of light for the most part, you can not find just one (they like to be in pairs)and know where it is. You can only know it's general area by disturbing it with something. I would suggest that the Higgs model which includes two weakons, these draw ZPE from the ZPF at an offset location beside the electron, and so the electron is constantly moving to that future position to obtain it's ZPE or it will collapse.

This would infer to me that ZPE generally moves at the speed of light thru the average ZPF.

You can't find an electron but I believe you can make one (no two), if you could cause the right type of oscillations to occur at a given point.


What is a 'fundamental' particle? A particle is called fundamental when it is one particle. Is that right? Fair enough. What counts as 'one'? If the particle disappears into energy, does it still count as a 'fundamental' particle? Maybe yes. And if the one particle can split, then it is not fundamental? Maybe no. What do you mean by 'fundamental particle'?

Further, what is 'particle'? To be simplistic, is it like a sort of nutty, hard thing that resists movement? Or is it less nutty and hard, but still resists movement, like a sort of watery, wave thing? Is our metaphysics, our models, serving us well here? or should we forget models altogether and just rely on the numbers thrown up by QM theory to predict what happens to our nutty, wavy things? If we do that, then how far does QM actually represent the world?

My point about 'finding an electron' was that we must have a theory of objects before we can talk about 'finding an electron'. I asked whether electrons are pre-defined and displayed by nature, or whether they are constructions of theory, where theory itself is not displayed by nature, but constructed by humankind. If this point is not addressed, we have no grounds for asking questions like 'what is the electron really like'; we also will not be able to use terms like 'fundamental particle' with clarity.
0 Replies
 
g day
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Sep, 2005 01:24 am
There's irony when you use a word like clarity in a sentence.

Electrons are used to describe our understanding of something than goes into the composition of alot of matter. Kinda like water is used to described what largely comprises oceans.

Is water predefined or a construct of nature by your defintion?

Awaiting any clarity you care to shed on your views with baited breath, wondering whether it can possibly be succinct.

* * *

Dictionary - elementary particle
n.
Any of the subatomic particles that compose matter and energy, especially one hypothesized or regarded as an irreducible constituent of matter. Also called fundamental particle.

* * *

Further basics http://www.answers.com/fundamental+particle&r=67

elementary particles, the most basic physical constituents of the universe. Basic Constituents of Matter

Molecules are built up from the atom, which is the basic unit of any chemical element. The atom in turn is made from the proton, neutron, and electron. It turns out that protons and neutrons are made of varieties of a still smaller particle called the quark. At this time it appears that the two basic constituents of matter are the lepton (of which the electron is one type) and quark; there are believed to be six types of each. Each type of lepton and quark also has a corresponding antiparticle: a particle that has the same mass but opposite electrical charge and magnetic moment. An isolated quark has never been found?-quarks appear to almost always be found in pairs or triplets with other quarks and antiquarks (the resulting particles being classed as hadrons, more than 200 of which have been identified). Two theoretically predicted five-quark particles, called pentaquarks, have been produced in the laboratory. Four- and six-quark particles are also predicted but have not been found.

The most familiar lepton is the electron; the other five leptons are the muon, the tau particle, and the three types of neutrino associated with each: the electron neutrino, the muon neutrino, and the tau neutrino. The six quarks have been whimsically named up, down, charm, strange, top (or truth), and bottom (or beauty); the top quark, which has a mass greater than an entire atom of gold, is about 35 times heavier than the next biggest quark and may be the heaviest particle nature has ever created. The quarks found in ordinary matter are the up and down quarks, from which protons and neutrons are made. A proton, for instance, consists of two up quarks and a down quark, and a neutron consists of two down quarks and an up quark. The pentaquark consists of two up quarks, two down quarks, and the strange antiquark. (Quarks have fractional charges of one third or two thirds of the basic charge of the electron or proton.)

Carriers of the Basic Forces

The elementary particles of matter interact with one another through four distinct types of force: gravitation, electromagnetism, and the forces from strong interactions and weak interactions. A given particle experiences certain of these forces, while it may be immune to others. The gravitational force is experienced by all particles. The electromagnetic force is experienced only by charged particles, such as the electron and muon. The strong nuclear force is responsible for the structure of the nucleus, and only particles made up of quarks participate in the strong nuclear interaction or force. Other particles, including the electron, muon, and the three neutrinos, do not participate in the strong nuclear interactions but only in the weak nuclear interactions associated with particle decay.

Each force is carried by an elementary particle. The electromagnetic force, for instance, is mediated by the photon, the basic quantum of electromagnetic radiation. The strong force is mediated by the gluon, the weak force by the W and Z particles, and gravity is thought to be mediated by the graviton. Quantum field theory applied to the understanding of the electromagnetic force is called quantum electrodynamics, and applied to the understanding of strong interactions is called quantum chromodynamics. In 1979 Sheldon Glashow, Steven Weinberg, and Abdus Salam were awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics for their work in demonstrating that the electromagnetic and weak forces are really manifestations of a single electroweak force. A unified theory that would explain all four forces as manifestations of a single force is being sought.

Standard Model of Particle Physics

The behavior of all known subatomic particles can be described within a single theoretical framework called the Standard Model. This model incorporates the quarks and leptons as well as their interactions through the strong, weak and electromagnetic forces. Only gravity remains outside the Standard Model. The force-carrying particles are called gauge bosons, and they differ fundamentally from the quarks and leptons. The fundamental forces appear to behave very differently in ordinary matter, but the Standard Model indicates that they are basically very similar when matter is in a high-energy environment.

Although the Standard Model does a credible job in explaining the interactions among quarks, leptons, and bosons, the theory does not include an important property of elementary particles, their mass. The lightest particle is the electron and the heaviest particle is believed to be the top quark, which weighs at least 200,000 times as much as an electron. In 1964 Scottish physicist Peter W. Higgs of Edinburgh University proposed a mechanism that provided a way to explain how the fundamental particles could have mass. Higgs theorized that the whole of space is permeated by a field, now called the Higgs field, similar in some ways to the electromagnetic field. As particles move through space they travel through this field, and if they interact with it they acquire what appears to be mass. A basic part of quantum theory is wave-particle duality--all fields have particles associated with them. The particle associated with the Higgs field is the Higgs boson, a particle with no intrinsic spin or electrical charge. Although it is called a boson, it does not mediate force as do the other bosons (see below). The Higgs boson has not yet been observed. Finding it is the key to discovering whether the Higgs field exists, whether Higgs's hypothesis for the origin of mass is indeed correct, and whether the Standard Model will survive.

Classification of Elementary Particles

Two types of statistics are used to describe elementary particles, and the particles are classified on the basis of which statistics they obey. Fermi-Dirac statistics apply to those particles restricted by the Pauli exclusion principle; particles obeying the Fermi-Dirac statistics are known as fermions. Leptons and quarks are fermions. Two fermions are not allowed to occupy the same quantum state. Bose-Einstein statistics apply to all particles not covered by the exclusion principle, and such particles are known as bosons. The number of bosons in a given quantum state is not restricted. In general, fermions compose nuclear and atomic structure, while bosons act to transmit forces between fermions; the photon, gluon, and the W and Z particles are bosons.

Basic categories of particles have also been distinguished according to other particle behavior. The strongly interacting particles were classified as either mesons or baryons; it is now known that mesons consist of quark-antiquark pairs and that baryons consist of quark triplets. The meson class members are more massive than the leptons but generally less massive than the proton and neutron, although some mesons are heavier than these particles. The lightest members of the baryon class are the proton and neutron, and the heavier members are known as hyperons. In the meson and baryon classes are included a number of particles that cannot be detected directly because their lifetimes are so short that they leave no tracks in a cloud chamber or bubble chamber. These particles are known as resonances, or resonance states, because of an analogy between their manner of creation and the resonance of an electrical circuit.

See table entitled Elementary Particles.

Conservation Laws and Symmetry

Some conservation laws apply both to elementary particles and to microscopic objects, such as the laws governing the conservation of mass-energy, linear momentum, angular momentum, and charge. Other conservation laws have meaning only on the level of particle physics, including the three conservation laws for leptons, which govern members of the electron, muon, and tau families respectively, and the law governing members of the baryon class.

New quantities have been invented to explain certain aspects of particle behavior. For example, the relatively slow decay of kaons, lambda hyperons, and some other particles led physicists to the conclusion that some conservation law prevented these particles from decaying rapidly through the strong interaction; instead they decayed through the weak interaction. This new quantity was named "strangeness" and is conserved in both strong and electromagnetic interactions, but not in weak interactions. Thus, the decay of a "strange" particle into nonstrange particles, e.g., the lambda baryon into a proton and pion, can proceed only by the slow weak interaction and not by the strong interaction.

Another quantity explaining particle behavior is related to the fact that many particles occur in groups, called multiplets, in which the particles are of almost the same mass but differ in charge. The proton and neutron form such a multiplet. The new quantity describes mathematically the effect of changing a proton into a neutron, or vice versa, and was given the name isotopic spin. This name was chosen because the total number of protons and neutrons in a nucleus determines what isotope the atom represents and because the mathematics describing this quantity are identical to those used to describe ordinary spin (the intrinsic angular momentum of elementary particles). Isotopic spin actually has nothing to do with spin, but is represented by a vector that can have various orientations in an imaginary space known as isotopic spin space. Isotopic spin is conserved only in the strong interactions.

Closely related to conservation laws are three symmetry principles that apply to changing the total circumstances of an event rather than changing a particular quantity. The three symmetry operations associated with these principles are: charge conjugation (C), which is equivalent to exchanging particles and antiparticles; parity (P), which is a kind of mirror-image symmetry involving the exchange of left and right; and time-reversal (T), which reverses the order in which events occur. According to the symmetry principles (or invariance principles), performing one of these symmetry operations on a possible particle reaction should result in a second reaction that is also possible. However, it was found in 1956 that parity is not conserved in the weak interactions, i.e., there are some possible particle decays whose mirror-image counterparts do not occur. Although not conserved individually, the combination of all three operations performed successively is conserved; this law is known as the CPT theorem.

The Discovery of Elementary Particles

The first subatomic particle to be discovered was the electron, identified in 1897 by J. J. Thomson. After the nucleus of the atom was discovered in 1911 by Ernest Rutherford, the nucleus of ordinary hydrogen was recognized to be a single proton. In 1932 the neutron was discovered. An atom was seen to consist of a central nucleus?-containing protons and, except for ordinary hydrogen, neutrons?-surrounded by orbiting electrons. However, other elementary particles not found in ordinary atoms immediately began to appear.

In 1928 the relativistic quantum theory of P. A. M. Dirac hypothesized the existence of a positively charged electron, or positron, which is the antiparticle of the electron; it was first detected in 1932. Difficulties in explaining beta decay (see radioactivity) led to the prediction of the neutrino in 1930, and by 1934 the existence of the neutrino was firmly established in theory (although it was not actually detected until 1956). Another particle was also added to the list: the photon, which had been first suggested by Einstein in 1905 as part of his quantum theory of the photoelectric effect.

The next particles discovered were related to attempts to explain the strong interactions, or strong nuclear force, binding nucleons (protons and neutrons) together in an atomic nucleus. In 1935 Hideki Yukawa suggested that a meson (a charged particle with a mass intermediate between those of the electron and the proton) might be exchanged between nucleons. The meson emitted by one nucleon would be absorbed by another nucleon; this would produce a strong force between the nucleons, analogous to the force produced by the exchange of photons between charged particles interacting through the electromagnetic force. (It is now known, of course, that the strong force is mediated by the gluon.) The following year a particle of approximately the required mass (about 200 times that of the electron) was discovered and named the mu meson, or muon. However, its behavior did not conform to that of the theoretical particle. In 1947 the particle predicted by Yukawa was finally discovered and named the pi meson, or pion.

Both the muon and the pion were first observed in cosmic rays. Further studies of cosmic rays turned up more particles. By the 1950s these elementary particles were also being observed in the laboratory as a result of particle collisions produced by a particle accelerator.

One of the current frontiers in the study of elementary particles concerns the interface between that discipline and cosmology. The known quarks and leptons, for instance, are typically grouped in three families (where each family contains two quarks and two leptons); investigators have wondered whether additional families of elementary particles might be found. Recent work in cosmology pertaining to the evolution of the universe has suggested that there could be no more families than four, and the cosmological theory has been substantiated by experimental work at the Stanford Linear Accelerator and at CERN, which indicates that there are no families of elementary particles other than the three that are known today.
0 Replies
 
John Jones
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Sep, 2005 05:54 am
g__day wrote:
There's irony when you use a word like clarity in a sentence.

Electrons are used to describe our understanding of something than goes into the composition of alot of matter. Kinda like water is used to described what largely comprises oceans.

Is water predefined or a construct of nature by your defintion?

Awaiting any clarity you care to shed on your views with baited breath, wondering whether it can possibly be succinct.

* * *

Dictionary - elementary particle
n.
Any of the subatomic particles that compose matter and energy, especially one hypothesized or regarded as an irreducible constituent of matter. Also called fundamental particle.

* * *

Further basics http://www.answers.com/fundamental+particle&r=67

elementary particles, the most basic physical constituents of the universe. Basic Constituents of Matter

Molecules are built up from the atom, which is the basic unit of any chemical element. The atom in turn is made from the proton, neutron, and electron. It turns out that protons and neutrons are made of varieties of a still smaller particle called the quark. At this time it appears that the two basic constituents of matter are the lepton (of which the electron is one type) and quark; there are believed to be six types of each. Each type of lepton and quark also has a corresponding antiparticle: a particle that has the same mass but opposite electrical charge and magnetic moment. An isolated quark has never been found?-quarks appear to almost always be found in pairs or triplets with other quarks and antiquarks (the resulting particles being classed as hadrons, more than 200 of which have been identified). Two theoretically predicted five-quark particles, called pentaquarks, have been produced in the laboratory. Four- and six-quark particles are also predicted but have not been found.

The most familiar lepton is the electron; the other five leptons are the muon, the tau particle, and the three types of neutrino associated with each: the electron neutrino, the muon neutrino, and the tau neutrino. The six quarks have been whimsically named up, down, charm, strange, top (or truth), and bottom (or beauty); the top quark, which has a mass greater than an entire atom of gold, is about 35 times heavier than the next biggest quark and may be the heaviest particle nature has ever created. The quarks found in ordinary matter are the up and down quarks, from which protons and neutrons are made. A proton, for instance, consists of two up quarks and a down quark, and a neutron consists of two down quarks and an up quark. The pentaquark consists of two up quarks, two down quarks, and the strange antiquark. (Quarks have fractional charges of one third or two thirds of the basic charge of the electron or proton.)

Carriers of the Basic Forces

The elementary particles of matter interact with one another through four distinct types of force: gravitation, electromagnetism, and the forces from strong interactions and weak interactions. A given particle experiences certain of these forces, while it may be immune to others. The gravitational force is experienced by all particles. The electromagnetic force is experienced only by charged particles, such as the electron and muon. The strong nuclear force is responsible for the structure of the nucleus, and only particles made up of quarks participate in the strong nuclear interaction or force. Other particles, including the electron, muon, and the three neutrinos, do not participate in the strong nuclear interactions but only in the weak nuclear interactions associated with particle decay.

Each force is carried by an elementary particle. The electromagnetic force, for instance, is mediated by the photon, the basic quantum of electromagnetic radiation. The strong force is mediated by the gluon, the weak force by the W and Z particles, and gravity is thought to be mediated by the graviton. Quantum field theory applied to the understanding of the electromagnetic force is called quantum electrodynamics, and applied to the understanding of strong interactions is called quantum chromodynamics. In 1979 Sheldon Glashow, Steven Weinberg, and Abdus Salam were awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics for their work in demonstrating that the electromagnetic and weak forces are really manifestations of a single electroweak force. A unified theory that would explain all four forces as manifestations of a single force is being sought.

Standard Model of Particle Physics

The behavior of all known subatomic particles can be described within a single theoretical framework called the Standard Model. This model incorporates the quarks and leptons as well as their interactions through the strong, weak and electromagnetic forces. Only gravity remains outside the Standard Model. The force-carrying particles are called gauge bosons, and they differ fundamentally from the quarks and leptons. The fundamental forces appear to behave very differently in ordinary matter, but the Standard Model indicates that they are basically very similar when matter is in a high-energy environment.

Although the Standard Model does a credible job in explaining the interactions among quarks, leptons, and bosons, the theory does not include an important property of elementary particles, their mass. The lightest particle is the electron and the heaviest particle is believed to be the top quark, which weighs at least 200,000 times as much as an electron. In 1964 Scottish physicist Peter W. Higgs of Edinburgh University proposed a mechanism that provided a way to explain how the fundamental particles could have mass. Higgs theorized that the whole of space is permeated by a field, now called the Higgs field, similar in some ways to the electromagnetic field. As particles move through space they travel through this field, and if they interact with it they acquire what appears to be mass. A basic part of quantum theory is wave-particle duality--all fields have particles associated with them. The particle associated with the Higgs field is the Higgs boson, a particle with no intrinsic spin or electrical charge. Although it is called a boson, it does not mediate force as do the other bosons (see below). The Higgs boson has not yet been observed. Finding it is the key to discovering whether the Higgs field exists, whether Higgs's hypothesis for the origin of mass is indeed correct, and whether the Standard Model will survive.

Classification of Elementary Particles

Two types of statistics are used to describe elementary particles, and the particles are classified on the basis of which statistics they obey. Fermi-Dirac statistics apply to those particles restricted by the Pauli exclusion principle; particles obeying the Fermi-Dirac statistics are known as fermions. Leptons and quarks are fermions. Two fermions are not allowed to occupy the same quantum state. Bose-Einstein statistics apply to all particles not covered by the exclusion principle, and such particles are known as bosons. The number of bosons in a given quantum state is not restricted. In general, fermions compose nuclear and atomic structure, while bosons act to transmit forces between fermions; the photon, gluon, and the W and Z particles are bosons.

Basic categories of particles have also been distinguished according to other particle behavior. The strongly interacting particles were classified as either mesons or baryons; it is now known that mesons consist of quark-antiquark pairs and that baryons consist of quark triplets. The meson class members are more massive than the leptons but generally less massive than the proton and neutron, although some mesons are heavier than these particles. The lightest members of the baryon class are the proton and neutron, and the heavier members are known as hyperons. In the meson and baryon classes are included a number of particles that cannot be detected directly because their lifetimes are so short that they leave no tracks in a cloud chamber or bubble chamber. These particles are known as resonances, or resonance states, because of an analogy between their manner of creation and the resonance of an electrical circuit.

See table entitled Elementary Particles.

Conservation Laws and Symmetry

Some conservation laws apply both to elementary particles and to microscopic objects, such as the laws governing the conservation of mass-energy, linear momentum, angular momentum, and charge. Other conservation laws have meaning only on the level of particle physics, including the three conservation laws for leptons, which govern members of the electron, muon, and tau families respectively, and the law governing members of the baryon class.

New quantities have been invented to explain certain aspects of particle behavior. For example, the relatively slow decay of kaons, lambda hyperons, and some other particles led physicists to the conclusion that some conservation law prevented these particles from decaying rapidly through the strong interaction; instead they decayed through the weak interaction. This new quantity was named "strangeness" and is conserved in both strong and electromagnetic interactions, but not in weak interactions. Thus, the decay of a "strange" particle into nonstrange particles, e.g., the lambda baryon into a proton and pion, can proceed only by the slow weak interaction and not by the strong interaction.

Another quantity explaining particle behavior is related to the fact that many particles occur in groups, called multiplets, in which the particles are of almost the same mass but differ in charge. The proton and neutron form such a multiplet. The new quantity describes mathematically the effect of changing a proton into a neutron, or vice versa, and was given the name isotopic spin. This name was chosen because the total number of protons and neutrons in a nucleus determines what isotope the atom represents and because the mathematics describing this quantity are identical to those used to describe ordinary spin (the intrinsic angular momentum of elementary particles). Isotopic spin actually has nothing to do with spin, but is represented by a vector that can have various orientations in an imaginary space known as isotopic spin space. Isotopic spin is conserved only in the strong interactions.

Closely related to conservation laws are three symmetry principles that apply to changing the total circumstances of an event rather than changing a particular quantity. The three symmetry operations associated with these principles are: charge conjugation (C), which is equivalent to exchanging particles and antiparticles; parity (P), which is a kind of mirror-image symmetry involving the exchange of left and right; and time-reversal (T), which reverses the order in which events occur. According to the symmetry principles (or invariance principles), performing one of these symmetry operations on a possible particle reaction should result in a second reaction that is also possible. However, it was found in 1956 that parity is not conserved in the weak interactions, i.e., there are some possible particle decays whose mirror-image counterparts do not occur. Although not conserved individually, the combination of all three operations performed successively is conserved; this law is known as the CPT theorem.

The Discovery of Elementary Particles

The first subatomic particle to be discovered was the electron, identified in 1897 by J. J. Thomson. After the nucleus of the atom was discovered in 1911 by Ernest Rutherford, the nucleus of ordinary hydrogen was recognized to be a single proton. In 1932 the neutron was discovered. An atom was seen to consist of a central nucleus?-containing protons and, except for ordinary hydrogen, neutrons?-surrounded by orbiting electrons. However, other elementary particles not found in ordinary atoms immediately began to appear.

In 1928 the relativistic quantum theory of P. A. M. Dirac hypothesized the existence of a positively charged electron, or positron, which is the antiparticle of the electron; it was first detected in 1932. Difficulties in explaining beta decay (see radioactivity) led to the prediction of the neutrino in 1930, and by 1934 the existence of the neutrino was firmly established in theory (although it was not actually detected until 1956). Another particle was also added to the list: the photon, which had been first suggested by Einstein in 1905 as part of his quantum theory of the photoelectric effect.

The next particles discovered were related to attempts to explain the strong interactions, or strong nuclear force, binding nucleons (protons and neutrons) together in an atomic nucleus. In 1935 Hideki Yukawa suggested that a meson (a charged particle with a mass intermediate between those of the electron and the proton) might be exchanged between nucleons. The meson emitted by one nucleon would be absorbed by another nucleon; this would produce a strong force between the nucleons, analogous to the force produced by the exchange of photons between charged particles interacting through the electromagnetic force. (It is now known, of course, that the strong force is mediated by the gluon.) The following year a particle of approximately the required mass (about 200 times that of the electron) was discovered and named the mu meson, or muon. However, its behavior did not conform to that of the theoretical particle. In 1947 the particle predicted by Yukawa was finally discovered and named the pi meson, or pion.

Both the muon and the pion were first observed in cosmic rays. Further studies of cosmic rays turned up more particles. By the 1950s these elementary particles were also being observed in the laboratory as a result of particle collisions produced by a particle accelerator.

One of the current frontiers in the study of elementary particles concerns the interface between that discipline and cosmology. The known quarks and leptons, for instance, are typically grouped in three families (where each family contains two quarks and two leptons); investigators have wondered whether additional families of elementary particles might be found. Recent work in cosmology pertaining to the evolution of the universe has suggested that there could be no more families than four, and the cosmological theory has been substantiated by experimental work at the Stanford Linear Accelerator and at CERN, which indicates that there are no families of elementary particles other than the three that are known today.



'Elementary particles' are not really defined by giving names to them. Here is a list of of changes. Which of them could be regarded as describing an elementary particle and which would not?
1. A particle disappears into its equivalent of energy.
2. A particle changes into another single particle.
3. A particle changes into many particles.
4. A particle remains unchanged for billions of years (calculated).
5. A particle changes in nano-seconds.
6. A particle changes its spin.
7. A particle changes its symmetry.

Water. The word must be recognised. The way in which it is recognised is displayed by the word. But 'fundamental particle' has no common recognitions. If QM uses the phrase, it should help us with a definition. I hope that list above is helpful to that task.
0 Replies
 
g day
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Sep, 2005 07:41 am
Point 1 - don't quote pages as a block when its immediately above your post - it's lame.

Point 2 - don't evade the question asked. Binary choice pal - I'll ask it again - is water predefined or a construct of nature by your definition

Point 3 - things are labelled by names but defined by observed properties within an identified measurement system of defining characteristics - you've missed that basic point somehow

Point 4 - elementary particles are generally defined under particle physics, which measure things surprise, surprise in terms of particle characteristics. You coined the phrase - just wanted to tell you which measurement system you had stepped in to.

Point 5 - Energy and mass are simple representations we can percieve of some deep underlying reality. Both can move within the realms of spacetime and both tell spacetime how to curve - so they must in some way interact. If you choose only particle physics models you have an incomplete methodology to examine this.

Point 6 - Motivation - are you merely expasperated on how technical are the jargon and constructs used to plumb some very exotic theories, or do you see it's a personal conspiracy to feed you bull and keep you in the dark - and you are thereby on a crusade to liberate anyone else you can convince to feel the same way?

Point 7 - Are you lost in definitional analysis somewhere and screaming to get out? Perhaps simpler language and logic constructs would help you level a more credible protest.
0 Replies
 
John Jones
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Sep, 2005 08:27 am
g__day wrote:
Point 1 - don't quote pages as a block when its immediately above your post - it's lame.

Point 2 - don't evade the question asked. Binary choice pal - I'll ask it again - is water predefined or a construct of nature by your definition

Point 3 - things are labelled by names but defined by observed properties within an identified measurement system of defining characteristics - you've missed that basic point somehow

Point 4 - elementary particles are generally defined under particle physics, which measure things surprise, surprise in terms of particle characteristics. You coined the phrase - just wanted to tell you which measurement system you had stepped in to.

Point 5 - Energy and mass are simple representations we can percieve of some deep underlying reality. Both can move within the realms of spacetime and both tell spacetime how to curve - so they must in some way interact. If you choose only particle physics models you have an incomplete methodology to examine this.

Point 6 - Motivation - are you merely expasperated on how technical are the jargon and constructs used to plumb some very exotic theories, or do you see it's a personal conspiracy to feed you bull and keep you in the dark - and you are thereby on a crusade to liberate anyone else you can convince to feel the same way?

Point 7 - Are you lost in definitional analysis somewhere and screaming to get out? Perhaps simpler language and logic constructs would help you level a more credible protest.


'Elementary particles' are not really defined by giving names to them. Here is a list of of changes. Which of them could be regarded as describing an elementary particle and which would not?
1. A particle disappears into its equivalent of energy.
2. A particle changes into another single particle.
3. A particle changes into many particles.
4. A particle remains unchanged for billions of years (calculated).
5. A particle changes in nano-seconds.
6. A particle changes its spin.
7. A particle changes its symmetry.

Water. The word must be recognised. The way in which it is recognised is displayed by the word. But 'fundamental particle' has no common recognitions. If QM uses the phrase, it should help us with a definition. I hope that list above is helpful to that task.
0 Replies
 
JGoldman10
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Sep, 2005 11:38 am
What's the difference between particles and sparticles? What are all these particles named after Greek letters?
0 Replies
 
John Jones
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Sep, 2005 01:08 pm
JGoldman10 wrote:
What's the difference between particles and sparticles? What are all these particles named after Greek letters?


yeh bloody right. And what's an elementary particle? Can you get a straight answer? No. So comon give us some straight answers someone. And I don't mean fancy names given to QM equations and numbers.
0 Replies
 
g day
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Sep, 2005 05:41 am
Well JJ - that repost with no content added sure delivered a whole lot more value - per your usual style!

I see we still don't know what you think water is, but we're prepared to wait while you figure it out Smile

An s-particle is a super-symmetric particle under the SuSy model. SuSy predicts there should exist super symmetric particles for all normal particles. So for an electron there should exist a s-electron, for a tau muon, there should exist a s-tau muon, for a anti-positron there should exists an s-anti-positron etc...

S-particles are predicted to be far heavier than normal particles - so to find and study them you need a much bigger collider - like the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) at CERN scheduled to go into operation in 2007. Until SuSy is developed further it can't make many predictions that caeventually be tested. Some of its predicitions might be statistically infered in ultra high energy colliders. An example of this is hidden dimensions - if ultra high energy collision tracks show energy leaks out at a quantum levels (meaning at a sub atomic level we see a bubble chamber crash of elementary particles where the energy is suddenly dips) this could infer it's leaking into hidden dimensions - if it doesn't leak it might mean hidden dimensions either are less likely to exist or are more subtle in their interactions with energetic particles.

I have no idea why they chose Greek versus Japanese of Russian or numbers or colours etc to label subatomic particles - maybe it goes back to where scientific method first began?
0 Replies
 
John Jones
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Sep, 2005 12:11 pm
g__day wrote:
Well JJ - that repost with no content added sure delivered a whole lot more value - per your usual style!

I see we still don't know what you think water is, but we're prepared to wait while you figure it out Smile

An s-particle is a super-symmetric particle under the SuSy model. SuSy predicts there should exist super symmetric particles for all normal particles. So for an electron there should exist a s-electron, for a tau muon, there should exist a s-tau muon, for a anti-positron there should exists an s-anti-positron etc...

S-particles are predicted to be far heavier than normal particles - so to find and study them you need a much bigger collider - like the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) at CERN scheduled to go into operation in 2007. Until SuSy is developed further it can't make many predictions that caeventually be tested. Some of its predicitions might be statistically infered in ultra high energy colliders. An example of this is hidden dimensions - if ultra high energy collision tracks show energy leaks out at a quantum levels (meaning at a sub atomic level we see a bubble chamber crash of elementary particles where the energy is suddenly dips) this could infer it's leaking into hidden dimensions - if it doesn't leak it might mean hidden dimensions either are less likely to exist or are more subtle in their interactions with energetic particles.

I have no idea why they chose Greek versus Japanese of Russian or numbers or colours etc to label subatomic particles - maybe it goes back to where scientific method first began?


We know what we mean by water. You may take any common meaning at your leisure. But I still have no common meaning for elementary particle. What's the point in QM talking about particles vs elementary particles if QM itself has not said what they mean by these terms?
0 Replies
 
g day
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 Sep, 2005 03:31 am
I have no view on your understanding of how water fills your definitions - and stop using the royal "we" when you wish to proclaim your views are generally held ones.

Do you think QM is so simple it is well understood yet? Perhaps that is your mistake.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Evolution 101 - Discussion by gungasnake
Typing Equations on a PC - Discussion by Brandon9000
The Future of Artificial Intelligence - Discussion by Brandon9000
The well known Mind vs Brain. - Discussion by crayon851
Scientists Offer Proof of 'Dark Matter' - Discussion by oralloy
Blue Saturn - Discussion by oralloy
Bald Eagle-DDT Myth Still Flying High - Discussion by gungasnake
DDT: A Weapon of Mass Survival - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2026 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 03/01/2026 at 11:27:34