Can somebody define a particle to me please?

Interdisciplinary science discussions. Also, if you are not sure where to place your thread, please post it here.

Can somebody define a particle to me please?

Postby handmade on May 5th, 2017, 12:08 pm 

I have just got banned from a rather poor ran forum for discussing particles.

I explain particles with solidity like atoms, and then theoretical particles like the higgs, in being like photons without solidity.

Anything wrong in that?
handmade
Banned User
 
Posts: 151
Joined: 07 Apr 2017


Re: Can somebody define a particle to me please?

Postby TheVat on May 5th, 2017, 12:22 pm 

We had a thread recently.....

http://sciencechatforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=83&t=32191


....chatting about the ontology of subatomic particles, i.e. the essential nature of "what they actually are." In physics, this is a very difficult matter, as the word "particle" is often a way of describing a measurement of a field excitation or perturbation in a particular way and shouldn't be taken as an accurate visual model of a "thing." I urge you to read this thread (though Hyksos' posts may not be quite at a beginner level if that's your point of departure, but others may be more accessible....) and then decide if you want a separate thread for this, or take up the matter further over there.

There is no simple answer at a scale where "solidity" doesn't really mean what it does in our ordinary experience of the world.
User avatar
TheVat
Forum Administrator
 
Posts: 6884
Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Black Hills


Re: Can somebody define a particle to me please?

Postby someguy1 on May 5th, 2017, 6:26 pm 

handmade » May 5th, 2017, 10:08 am wrote:I have just got banned from a rather poor ran forum for discussing particles.

I explain particles with solidity like atoms, and then theoretical particles like the higgs, in being like photons without solidity.

Anything wrong in that?


I haven't gotten banned anywhere yet but from time to time I get so upset about something I have to take a long self-imposed vacation. It's weird the way we get emotional about these forums. No wait I think I did get banned somewhere once. I just registered a new handle.

I don't think atoms are regarded as solid anymore. Some guy named Rutherford found that there are smaller particles inside the atom. That was in 1911 or so. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rutherford_model

Is that why you got into trouble?
someguy1
Member
 
Posts: 732
Joined: 08 Nov 2013


Re: Can somebody define a particle to me please?

Postby handmade on May 5th, 2017, 8:48 pm 

someguy1 » May 5th, 2017, 5:26 pm wrote:
handmade » May 5th, 2017, 10:08 am wrote:I have just got banned from a rather poor ran forum for discussing particles.

I explain particles with solidity like atoms, and then theoretical particles like the higgs, in being like photons without solidity.

Anything wrong in that?


I haven't gotten banned anywhere yet but from time to time I get so upset about something I have to take a long self-imposed vacation. It's weird the way we get emotional about these forums. No wait I think I did get banned somewhere once. I just registered a new handle.

I don't think atoms are regarded as solid anymore. Some guy named Rutherford found that there are smaller particles inside the atom. That was in 1911 or so. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rutherford_model

Is that why you got into trouble?


Thank you for the link, I did not even know there was another model of an atom, well I learn something new everyday.

What got me into trouble was asking them to produce a picture of a Higgs Boson in which I already know they could not provide . I then went on to explain the difference between a particle i.e grains of ''sweetcorn'' and a theoretical particle which are beyond the dimensions of light (we cant see them).

I then argued the evidence of a Higgs which is done by reading data, is rather weak and at best supposition without any physical evidence.

We have evidence we can trip over, then we have theoretical evidence and logic, the former being proof, the later being theoretical without any solid evidence.


So virtual particles as I call them are different to particles of solidity, they may or may not exist, but the other forum seem to think that it is 100% fact they do exist.
handmade
Banned User
 
Posts: 151
Joined: 07 Apr 2017


Re: Can somebody define a particle to me please?

Postby handmade on May 5th, 2017, 8:50 pm 

Braininvat » May 5th, 2017, 11:22 am wrote:We had a thread recently.....

http://sciencechatforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=83&t=32191


....chatting about the ontology of subatomic particles, i.e. the essential nature of "what they actually are." In physics, this is a very difficult matter, as the word "particle" is often a way of describing a measurement of a field excitation or perturbation in a particular way and shouldn't be taken as an accurate visual model of a "thing." I urge you to read this thread (though Hyksos' posts may not be quite at a beginner level if that's your point of departure, but others may be more accessible....) and then decide if you want a separate thread for this, or take up the matter further over there.

There is no simple answer at a scale where "solidity" doesn't really mean what it does in our ordinary experience of the world.
Thank you I will look this thread over.
handmade
Banned User
 
Posts: 151
Joined: 07 Apr 2017


Re: Can somebody define a particle to me please?

Postby mitchellmckain on May 27th, 2017, 2:58 am 

A particle is a point-like visualization of the most elementary components of the physical universe. But when particles like electrons were shown to have wave-like behavior and the electromagnetic waves were shown to have particle-like behavior, then it was realized that neither particle nor wave visualizations of these most fundamental objects entirely captured their reality.

They are now understood to be quantized fields, which means that although they spread out over space like a wave they also have a unitary indivisible existence as well. Thus instead of being divided into particles and waves, the fundamental components of the physical universe are divided into two types of quantized fields, the half spin fermions and integer spin bosons. The fermions obey a rule called the Pauli exclusion principle which means that more than one is not allowed to occupy the same state. It makes them the space-occupying structure-building components of matter. The bosons, however, have no such limitation and that makes them the force fields rather than matter.

Fermion examples: quarks, electrons, neutrinos, protons, neutrons, (although protons and neutrons are consider composites of three quarks)

Boson examples: photons, gravitons, gluons, pions (although pions are considered composites of two quarks), W, Z, and Higgs.

Many of these (especially the fermions) come in a number of different variations. For example electrons also have a antimatter opposite called the positron. There is also a higher mass unstable versions of the electron called the muon and the even more massive tau.

But what are they really? Because the quantized field jargon is mostly just a mathematical construct which helps to calculate effects and interactions. So you might think they are really particles after all and it is just a limitation of science which makes them a little "fuzzy." But the truth is that the scientists were never really happy with the idea of point-like particles because there were always mathematical singularities involved with the idea, where forces would go to infinity.
User avatar
mitchellmckain
Active Member
 
Posts: 1313
Joined: 27 Oct 2016
Dave_ObladFaradaveRoccoR liked this post


Re: Can somebody define a particle to me please?

Postby handmade on June 16th, 2017, 6:29 am 

Would all ''particles'' be hollow?

My reasoning , like wise polarities repulse, so if you can imagine trying to squeeze a ''ball'' of energy in your hand, it will always have an opposing force to your squeeze .
handmade
Banned User
 
Posts: 151
Joined: 07 Apr 2017


Re: Can somebody define a particle to me please?

Postby mitchellmckain on June 17th, 2017, 1:43 pm 

handmade » June 16th, 2017, 5:29 am wrote:Would all ''particles'' be hollow?

My reasoning , like wise polarities repulse, so if you can imagine trying to squeeze a ''ball'' of energy in your hand, it will always have an opposing force to your squeeze .


The idea of string theory (M theory) is that particles are vibrations. What makes this work out mathematically is supposing that space-time includes seven more dimensions which are extremely small (i.e. wrapped in a circle of about Plank's length in circumference). When you calculate what are the vibrational modes in this, it gives the spectrum of particles we observe. The principle attraction of the idea was that it made a lot of the infinities of Quantum Field Theory cancel out in renormalization. However, not all the kinks have been worked out of the theory yet and perhaps more importantly nobody has found a way to test it experimentally. Another problem is that a key part of it, supersymmetry, predicts particles which are not observed. Thus, it remains a work in progress.
User avatar
mitchellmckain
Active Member
 
Posts: 1313
Joined: 27 Oct 2016


Re: Can somebody define a particle to me please?

Postby thinker4life on July 4th, 2017, 3:34 pm 

I have just got banned from a rather poor ran forum for discussing particles.

I explain particles with solidity like atoms, and then theoretical particles like the higgs, in being like photons without solidity.

Anything wrong in that?


Is it safe to say that particles consist of "a set of points of mass-energy in a certain configuration," further saying that the specific configuration of the set of mass-energy points defines what type of particle it is. The Particle or Wave argument is one that needs to be measured over time based on behavior, so can't we just define particles this way and keep the definition simple, flexible, and ambiguous enough that it accounts for the fact that the universe changes the further you drill down into it?
thinker4life
Member
 
Posts: 105
Joined: 04 Jul 2017


Re: Can somebody define a particle to me please?

Postby socrat44 on February 19th, 2018, 9:50 am 

Can somebody define a particle to me please?

Quantum particle cannot be point.
Real quantum particle must have geometric form.
This g/form cannot be firm, it must be elastic - SRT.
The specific g/ form of q /particle must be confirmid by the laws of Physics.
===
socrat44
Member
 
Posts: 259
Joined: 12 Dec 2015


Re: Object Lesson

Postby Faradave on February 19th, 2018, 8:27 pm 

A particle is an object capable of interaction.

socrat44 wrote:Quantum particle cannot be point.

"At the present stage of knowledge, the electron is considered to be a particle with no spatial extension, and the same is true of the other leptons as well as the quarks." - Commins p. 154

"Nevertheless, there is good reason that an elementary particle is often called a point particle. Even if an elementary particle has a delocalized wavepacket, the wavepacket is in fact a quantum superposition of quantum states wherein the particle is exactly localized. … The 'size' of an elementary particle, in this sense, is exactly zero." - Point Particle
User avatar
Faradave
Active Member
 
Posts: 1765
Joined: 10 Oct 2012
Location: Times Square (T2)
doogles liked this post


Re: Object Lesson

Postby socrat44 on March 5th, 2018, 4:37 am 

Faradave » February 19th, 2018, 8:27 pm wrote:A particle is an object capable of interaction.

socrat44 wrote:Quantum particle cannot be point.

"At the present stage of knowledge, the electron is considered to be a particle with no spatial extension, and the same is true of the other leptons as well as the quarks." - Commins p. 154

"Nevertheless, there is good reason that an elementary particle is often called a point particle. Even if an elementary particle has a delocalized wavepacket, the wavepacket is in fact a quantum superposition of quantum states wherein the particle is exactly localized. … The 'size' of an elementary particle, in this sense, is exactly zero." - Point Particle


Quantum particle as a ''point'' was a good image for mathematical reason.
Quantum particle as a ''point'' is not good image for philosophical reason.
To understand what quantum particle really is we need to observe
quantum particle in some reference frame.
The problem is:
“ We have the laws, but we are not aware what the body
of reference system they belong to, and all our physical
construction appears erected on sand ”.
  /  Book “Evolution of Physics”  by Einstein and Infeld  /
=====
socrat44
Member
 
Posts: 259
Joined: 12 Dec 2015


Re: Pointed Reply

Postby Faradave on March 5th, 2018, 11:52 am 

socrat44 wrote:Quantum particle as a ''point'' is not good image for philosophical reason.

A "particle" has infinite extent by virtue of its field and is yet a geometric (or "mathematical") point by virtue of the center of that field.

I find such a model satisfied by considering as fundamental, a ray-like "field element" of infinite extent, which spins to create both field and center.

Image
In this model , a particle has no existence apart from spin (specifically, the quantum spin½ of fermions).
User avatar
Faradave
Active Member
 
Posts: 1765
Joined: 10 Oct 2012
Location: Times Square (T2)


Re: Pointed Reply

Postby socrat44 on March 5th, 2018, 1:42 pm 

Faradave » March 5th, 2018, 11:52 am wrote:
socrat44 wrote:Quantum particle as a ''point'' is not good image for philosophical reason.

A "particle" has infinite extent by virtue of its field and is yet a geometric (or "mathematical") point by virtue of the center of that field.

I find such a model satisfied by considering as fundamental, a ray-like "field element" of infinite extent, which spins to create both field and center.

Image
In this model , a particle has no existence apart from spin (specifically, the quantum spin½ of fermions).


Ha . . . . it is abstract mathematical image
Attachments
SRT = 4D.jpg
socrat44
Member
 
Posts: 259
Joined: 12 Dec 2015


Re: Getting Real

Postby Faradave on March 5th, 2018, 3:08 pm 

socrat44 wrote:Ha . . . . it is abstract mathematical image

The existence of a mathematical model does not by itself mean the model is abstract. That's only the case when a mathematical model is all we have. The diagram entails 4D, a lightlike field, and a particle all physical , though not essentially "material".

The "field element" is another object, I propose to simply link them all. It's more of a hole* than a something. I leave it to you to decide if a hole (the absence of something) can actually "exist". Keep in mind that our entire information revolution is based upon holes. Wheeler's "It from Bit" suggests an informational basis to all reality.

Punch Card.png
Holes: Can any thing be simpler?

*My pinhole (particle-interaction wormhole) model is part of a personal theory.
User avatar
Faradave
Active Member
 
Posts: 1765
Joined: 10 Oct 2012
Location: Times Square (T2)



Return to Anything Science

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 15 guests