Image: Craig Cutler
In Brief
- In 1869 Dmitri Mendeleev created the periodic table of chemical elements by noticing that elements' properties fit into a repeating pattern, which physicists later explained as a consequence of atomic structure. A similar story may be playing out in particle physics again today.
- The 12 known elementary particles have their own repeating patterns, suggesting they are not truly fundamental but actually tiny balls containing smaller particles, which physicists tentatively call preons.
- Other evidence argues against this possibility. The Large Hadron Collider at CERN, along with several lesser-known experiments, may finally settle the question.
The universe is a complex and intricate place.
We can move easily through air and yet not through a wall. The sun transmutes one element to another, bathing our planet in warmth and light. Radio waves have carried a man's voice to Earth from the surface of the moon, whereas gamma rays can inflict fatal damage on our DNA. On the face of it, these disparate phenomena have nothing to do with one another, but physicists have uncovered a handful of principles that fuse into a theory of sublime simplicity to explain all this and much more. This theory is called the Standard Model of particle physics, and it encapsulates the electromagnetic forces that make a wall feel solid, the nuclear forces that govern the sun's power plant, and the diverse family of light waves that both make modern communications possible and threaten our well-being.
This article was originally published with the title The Inner Life of Quarks.
Already a Digital subscriber? Sign-in Now
If your institution has site license access, enter here.
Rights & Permissions
See what we're tweeting about
47 Comments
Add CommentPlease fix the site. What a waste of time.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisB.L.
Yes, I'm signed in! No, it does not work!
This is a fascinating article. Not a professional, so this is my first exposure to the concept of Preons.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI remember first learning about quarks and how novel that seemed at the time, but the theory was proven by detecting the predicted families of quarks.
In similar fashion, we can hope that the energy levels of the LHC are sufficient to detect the potential or predicted existence of Preons.
Could the physical existence of the universe -- normal matter, dark matter, quarks, leptons, Bosons, the 17-odd 'fundamental' particles of The Standard Model -- all be comprised of combinations of only 4 even more fundamental particles?
@bern21 -- I can see your post, so at least THAT part is working .....
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisStructure of the Inner Life of Quarks: Calls for Design of New Tool's and instruments,if we are sincerely focused on disseminating the Structure of Quarks -- "Converging Graviton charges", - required to extrapolate & decipher , the "Quark " which is below the Planck Scale,and involves Time Reversal,the " Fifth Dimension " ,Phonon's and Resonance of Dynamical Planetary & Celestial Bodies Convergence "SYNCHRONIZED "Geometrodynamic's .
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisQuantum Physics and coupling of the Classical Cosmological World.
The author states, in discussing the Higgs field, that it doesn't affect "massless particles such as the photon..." Are there any, even theoretical, massless particles?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTypo on my post. I forgot the word "OTHER". It should read:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe author states, in discussing the Higgs field, that it doesn't affect "massless particles such as the photon..." Are there any OTHER, even theoretical, massless particles?
Yes. Gluons are massless (and are known to exist). Gravitons are hypothetical transmitters of the gravitational force. These are not known to be real. Neutrinos are exceedingly light, but not strictly massless.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCells within cells, within cells, within cells, within--
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSpeed of the earths rotation plus
Speed of the earths orbit around the sun plus
Speed of the expanding universe or more correctly the orbit of our universe etc, etc, etc.
Add a bit of this up and the speed of light is poof, nothing.
Forces of equal evolution act upon forces of equal evolution. A particle that has been reduced in size as to not interact will appear to be moving away from earth when in fact it is we who should be getting the speeding ticket.
A short time ago CERN announced a particle faster than light. Some time ago I announced that sound was faster than light. http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=162045&page=2
Everything orbits and there is no such thing as a straight line.
Editors - the print article "More to explore" sidebar mentions an interactive version of the standard model at scientificamerican.com/nov2012/preons
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHowever, checking this morning, I find only a stub page that advises me to check back on Oct. 17.
Is the interactive tool coming? If so, please update the stub with a currently expected delivery date. Thanks.
Bruce Voigt,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisKind of a long post for just rambling nonsense.
I think the print article is a good introductory overview of the potential internal structure of the currently identified fundamental particles. This is good for me, since I'd never considered preons before.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHowever, I'm confused.
The article seems to imply that a theory of even more fundamental component particles (preons) is required to explain the 3 generations of Fermions, which vary only in the amount of rest mass attributed to them (and their stability in the currently prevailing conditions of the universe).
However, the chart illustrating the Hanrari-Shupe model
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rishon_model
seems to indicate that it only attempts to explain the charge variation that distinguishes the four classes of Fermions , and subclasses of Bosons. There is no reference I could find to any variations in rest mass, which is what distinguishes the 3 generations of Fermions.
Moreover, as stated by
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preons
"Interest in preon models peaked in the 1980s but has slowed as the Standard Model of particle physics continues to describe the physics mostly successfully, and no direct experimental evidence for lepton and quark compositeness has been found, although in the hadronic sector there are some intriguing open questions and some effects considered as anomalies within the Standard Model. For example, four very important open questions are the proton spin puzzle, the EMC effect, the distributions of electric charges of the nucleons found by Hofstadter in 1956, and the ad hoc CKM matrix elements."
So, preons aside, regarding the unexplained 3 gens of matter, some I think critical information was omitted: that the unstable gen II & III particles only materialize at much increased collision velocities, or energies. For this reason I suggest that they can most simply be explained as inertial energy imparted to elementary particles by the conditions of nucleon decomposition.
There's also a fundamental issue in attempting to explain the distinguishing mass of gen II & III particles. See the sidebar chart "The Particle Landscape" in the print article or the 1st sidebar chart in
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Model
The basic issue is that a gen I 'up' type quark mass is ~2.3 MeV while its gen II mass is ~1,275 MeV. Meanwhile, the gen I 'down' type quark mass doubles the 'up' quark at 4.8 MeV, but the gen II is a fraction of the 'up' quark at 95 MeV. It seems that a theorem of quark composite particles explaining the variation in particle rest mass would have to be very complex indeed!
Can someone tell me how a fermion (or any matter) can have mass but no size (i.e. "point like")? That seems counter intuitive to me.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt's also difficult to comprehend how a point could have a spin property, since it could not rotate around any linear axis...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThese are both issues that would seemingly be resolved by quarks composed of component point-like particles, despite the issues with particle rest mass I mention above.
I do have an alternative conception - that mass is not a particle property but an external energy field comprised of reconfigured wave state propagation energy. In this scenario mass-energy is not contained within a point-like particle but is physically associated with it.
It could be configured such that the linearly directed energy of propagation envelopes the localized particle, always directed to its point location. In this way the direction of mass-energy would always be self-opposed, resisting motion.
Moreover, it would be partially aligned with the direction of any externally applied kinetic energy, potentially absorbing some portion of it, increasing effective mass and producing inertial effects...
To my knowledge, though, this view is just my personal conception that is not consistent with any well established interpretation.
One problem with modern physics is it is incremental - built upon the history of past inventions. Some take it to extreme levels and superstitiously refuse to whatever is not in the text books. Thus, while experimental scientists are achieving wonders, the theory side is almost stagnating. For example, the Higg's boson is yet to be confirmed even after nearly half a century - LHC declaration of 4th July does not confirm its existence.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe standard model has failed to integrate gravity in its fold and graviton is still a hypothetical subject. The pioneer anomaly, fly-by anomaly and the deflection of voyager-2 space crafts beyond the orbit of Saturn points to some defect in the modern theory of gravitation. This has led to MOND, which also is not satisfactory. We should remember that GR replaced Newtonian laws of gravitation after it explained the anomaly in the rotational period of Mercury. Yet, it has failed to resolve the problem of varying distance between Sun and Earth and Earth and Moon. Thus, while there is a clamor among the knowledgeable for a new theory of gravitation, no one is willing to give up their text book version.
We have submitted a different theory of gravity to the Gravity Research Foundation. We have pointed out that it is not an attractive force as is commonly believed, but is a balancing force that regulates the maximum distance of two bodies in a field - be it the planetary orbits or electron shells. It must be remembered that unlike the electromagnetic force that acts like a monogamous partner, gravity acts like a polygamous partner. Similarly, it treats the bodies as point particles - it operates between the points of masses. Thirdly, it is associated with motion along with mass - thus, with momentum and not mass alone. We have also shown that the so-called dark energy, which is thought of as an anti-gravity force, cannot be energy only because it is smooth and persistent. We postulate it as a universal background structure, which is in conformity with Schrodinger's equations and relativity.
Yes, it should also be noted that the relative strength of gravitation's immediate effect seems to be much weaker than those of particle mediated forces. However, the range of gravity's effects appear to be universal while the forces of matter are highly localized by the interchange of particles.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFor these reasons I suggest that gravity is not force of matter at all, but the interaction between potential mass-energy and kinetic space-energy. The universal expansion of spacetime requires that it contain some energy producing that action. The effects of gravitation are effectively identical to that of an external directional acceleration imparted to matter. While GR very accurately describes the effect of gravitation as alterations to an abstract system of dimensional coordinates of spacetime, but does not describe any physical media the those coordinates represent. I suggest that the dimensional coordinates of spacetime described by GR represent external gradients of kinetic vacuum energy density locally contracted by its interaction with aggregated potential mass-energy. Essentially, massive objects contract external vacuum energy to accelerate material objects.
In this scenario, there is no quantum gravitational effect, only quantum mass-energy. Gravitational effects exist only within universal spacetime in the presence of local aggregations of mass-energy.
The local density of vacuum energy is evidenced by quantum flux - the continuous manifestation and subsequent annihilation of 'virtual' particles and antiparticles. For this to represent kinetic vacuum energy that imparts acceleration to matter, described by GR as the gradient dimensional coordinates of curved spacetime, I propose that the rate of virtual particle annihilation should vary within the gradients of gravitational fields (the curvature of spacetime) as a function of vacuum energy density.
With sufficiently sensitive detection apparatus, these gradient fields of vacuum energy density should be detectable as varying rates of quantum flux at varying altitudes within the Earth's gravitational field or at orbital distances. It should also be detectable in the local gravitation of the Moon's surface, for example.
I think this testable conception of gravitation provides a scale dependent physical mechanism producing the effects of gravitation in a way that is generally consistent with well established descriptions of gravitational effects.
P.S. MOND was a response to the perceived galaxy rotation problem - see http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1419
The author stated that "preons and superstrings can amiably coexist". I wondered if scientists studying preon models have ever made a connection with supersymmetry, and if preon theories and susy could coexist as well ? Can these theories shed light on one another ?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisStandard Model provides for 12 fundamental matter particles, 4 particles with each spread in 3 generations, and 4 force particles. One of the intriguing situation in the model has been that there is no symmetric relation between various matter particles implying there is no connection between mass and charge of various matter particles. Mass and charge of different particles appear to be independent of each other. This raises a doubt on the very fundamental nature of the matter particles.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn the first place, an intuitive and logical query arises: Why Nature should start with so many matter particles and all have been branded as fundamental. a logical and rational approach demands that Nature should have started with one basic fundamental matter particle and all subsequent matter particles should have been the outcome of that fundamental particle from a cause-effect chain. In that case, there would have been some predictive relation in mass and charge of various matter particles. But this is not the case. This raises a natural query that either all the matter particles might not be existing at all Or they are not fundamental in real sense.
Another unresolved aspect of Standard Model is its inability to specify the mechanism which distinguishes matter ( mass) from energy ( force). Model provides for an external Higgs field which sticks with matter particles to endow mass. But the issue which remains unresolved in the context is : Can some particles be really treated as matter particles without assignment of mass? As such, What is the nature of particles which gain mass from Higgs Field?
Dear Sir,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe generally agree with your view that gravity is not a force of matter at all, but the interaction between potential mass-energy and kinetic space-energy. We treat mass as confined field and energy as mass unleashed. Thus, potential mass-energy is the same as confined field and kinetic space-energy is the same as density gradient of the field. However, the expansion of spacetime is not universal. It is perceptible only at the galactic cluster level. It is not perceptible local levels such as within the stars among the galaxy. If the universe is expanding like a balloon, the spots (galaxies including stars and planets) should also experience this expansion. Thus, we explain the phenomenon as a static, but spinning universe, where the galactic clusters move in different orbits around a galactic center, just like the planets go round the Sun. We see temporarily some planets moving ahead very fast and at other times moving backwards. In the universe, we are seeing the fast phase, where the galaxies appear to be moving away. At other times, we may see the opposite effect. The measurement of the expansion is only 80 year old, which is insignificant in cosmic scales. The effects of gravitation are effectively identical to that of an external directional acceleration imparted to matter, because it is dictated by the density gradient of the external field. This rules out dark energy as an anti-gravity force.
In fact, the term dark energy is an oxymoron. Energy is perceived only through interaction. If it does not interact, hence dark, it cannot be energy. We postulate it as a background structure. Light is described as a transverse wave and by definition; all transverse waves are background invariant. Thus, the null result of the ether drag experiment is not surprising. But it does not rule out a background structure. Schrödinger’s equations are also medium based.
However, regarding quantum gravity, we have a different opinion. We define dimension as the perception of differentiation of “inner space” from “outer space”, of the confined field leading to higher density than the local field. But the same principle as outside, is also evident inside the confinement. This quantum gravity resolves into the other fundamental forces of Nature
mbasudeba@gmail.com
Dear Sir,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is true that in the Standard Model there is no symmetric relation between various matter particles implying there is no connection between their mass and charge and that mass and charge of different particles appear to be independent of each other. Nature started with one fundamental stuff and all subsequent particles are the time evolution of that fundamental stuff through a cause-effect chain. However, there would be no predictive relation in mass and charge of various matter particles, because it is not necessarily essential. We accept the equation e = mc^2 to represent that mass and energy are inseparable conjugates, but challenge the interpretation of mass energy conversion. The principle of mass-energy equivalence, which is treated as the corner-stone principle of all nuclear interactions, binding energies of atoms and nucleons, etc., enters physics only as a corollary of the transformation equations between frames of references in relative motion. Mass and energy exhibit distinct characteristics that are opposite to each other. In the macro world, we find many examples, where the mass and charge relation is not honored. Since both mass and charge are also found in the macro world, it cannot be wished away by citing quantum fuzziness.
basudeba
"Nature started with one fundamental stuff and all subsequent particles are the time evolution of that fundamental stuff through a cause-effect chain."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"We accept the equation e = mc^2 to represent that mass and energy are inseparable conjugates,"
You agree to the view that Nature started with ONE fundamental stuff and mass -energy are inseparable conjugates. If Nature started with only ONE fundamental stuff, it implies matter and energy should be time evolution products of each other in some cause-effect chain relation. Probably, matter might be the time evolution aspect of energy in some complex unknown mechanism. This leads to the corollary that energy and matter are interchangeable. If we do not agree to the interchangability of matter and energy, Nature can not start with one Fundamental stuff implying two distinct stuff shall always remain in existence.
This is true that energy and matter have distinct characteristics. But this should not come in a way in the time evolution of energy or matter from each other. As you agree, all matter particles also indicate different characteristics even though they are the time evolution products in the common chain
One problem arising from the point like structure of fundamental particles is regarding the very fundamental existence of such particles. If fundamental particles ( of Standard model) are really point like, there should be no meaning of their spin, internal angular momentum and mass. In the strictest sense, a point like discrete structure implies nil existence. A point by definition means without any dimensionality. Dimensionality is imperative for the discrete existence of matter. If discrete dimensionality is not present in matter, how it will differentiate from energy which has no dimensionality. In e.m energy wave also, oscillation of fields along specified direction and polarization seem to have implicit spatial dimensionality though it is difficult to comprehend and understand.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhen we said that Nature started with ONE fundamental stuff and matter and energy are inseparable conjugates, obviously we imply that both matter and energy have a common origin. But this does not imply that both are interchangeable. In that case they would not be two different aspects, but would indicate a single aspect. However, they exhibit mutually exclusive characteristics. This proves that they are two complimentary aspects that originated from the same source.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisall In fundamental physics, all particles, of mass or of energy, can be considered to be simply particles of mass-energy. In empirical physics, the ultimate (smallest) particle or quantum of mass-energy detectable will be the 'per-cycle' particle of ANY photon (that comes a-ticking on our detectors, the frequency of which ticks characteristically identifies the photon); and which per-cycle quantum, which is common to ALL photons, I have termed the RADIATON. That is to say, in ANY physical experiment, the ultimate particle of detection will be the radiaton.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPlanck's law (E= hf) states that
energy = (an absolute constant) x (cycles/unit of time).
Transposing,
energy/(cycles)= (an absolute constant)/(unit of time)
In other words, The per-cycle energy quantum (the radiaton is an absolute constant over time.
And it can now be just as simply shown that the radiaton is the long-sought God particle (no kin of Higgs!) that fundamentally constitutes ALL that we see as nature in and around us, from the lowly photon to the stars and galaxies, an beyond, of our universe.Do access the one-page summary: http://www.sittampalam.net/Summary.pdf ; and for more details: http://www.sittampalam.net/Synopsis.htm
Thank you all for your time here. Cheers!
www.toe.tv
Dear Sir,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou have put it in a nice way that could lead to further thoughts. Whatever you name the particle of mass-energy, for coming to per-cycle stage (a closed loop or two dimensional trajectories), you must explain the mechanism.
Conceptually, all forces are similar in the sense, they are perceived as inducing motion. This motion takes different forms based on the nature of the particle and arrangement of particles in the local field. The local field rests on the non-interacting base that is the background structure. At the sub-atomic level, these appear as the fundamental forces of Nature. Thus, they appear in relation to sub-atomic arrangements. Gravity is the interaction of two bodies (including sub-assemblies or components of a particle) that stabilize at a maximum possible distance. This distance is equal from their barycenter, around which they revolve. Hence it is both inter and intra particle force. This makes the two broad divisions of gravity, which is further resolved into many other divisions.
basudeba
Whether matter or energy, there are common particles of mass-energy particles irrespective of its name being photons or radiations or any other name. These particles should emanate out from a stuff common to both matter and energy. Despite having common mass-energy particles, matter and energy have quite different and distinct characteristics. It implies, on appearance of common particles from some stuff thru some mechanism ( about which we don't know fully), there should be some intrinsic or extrinsic interventional mechanism which will split common particle stuff into two streams --- part will evolve into different matter particles and part will remain as energy or evolve into energy. Though matter particles will evolve over time into a sequence of particles ( which should have some interconnection though we may not be knowing this) but no such sequence is observed in case of energy.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisQuestion arises: Why and what physical mechanism induces differentiation of common mass-energy particles into distict matter and energy streams?
To say that it is the underlying field, in the background of common mass -energy particles, which induces differentiation amounts to shifting the issue backward since immediate issue will arise about the genesis of field and mechanism) ( internal or external) in the Field which prompts differentiation of common mass-energy particle.
Gravity may be an interaction of bodies which may cause bodies to stabilize at maximum distance. But this does not solve the issue of genesis or physical mechanism behind gravity. In the first place, gravity has been stated as interaction between bodies which leads to inference that there is some interacting force between bodies which tend to their stabilization at max. distance. Had there been no interacting force, question of stabilization or unstabilization would not have arisen at all. Sheer fact of stabilization of bodies is implicit with the requirement of some force.In other words, in the absence of some force why bodies should have unstable configuration at any distance? If we seek the genesis of this force within bodies, we are moving towards quantum model of gravity. If we move to some external cause of this interacting force, we move towards Einsteinan's GR model or Newtonian model. In GR though gravity has been described as warping ( or distortion) of space around itself and that too but an obvious question arises: In the absence of some interacting force between matter and space, why matter of massive bodies should cause distortion in space.
Dear Sir,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDear Sir,
When you say: “These particles should emanate out from a stuff common to both matter and energy”, you are right. But just like a charged particle can be positively charged or negatively charged, they are distinctly different from each other. Thus, the primordial source, “Despite having common mass-energy characteristics, matter and energy have quite different and distinct characteristics”. Again you are right that “there should be some intrinsic or extrinsic interventional mechanism which will split common particle stuff into two streams”. We have a theory on this, which we will discuss separately. When you say: “Though matter particles will evolve over time into a sequence of particles (which should have some interconnection though we may not be knowing this) but no such sequence is observed in case of energy”, you are only conforming our view that “Conceptually, all forces are similar in the sense, they are perceived as inducing motion.” In fact this is most crucial to our theory.
We never said that it is the underlying field, in the background of common mass-energy particles, which induces differentiation amounts to shifting the issue backward. In fact, we had said “The local field rests on the non-interacting base that is the background structure”. Thereby we hinted at two different fields: one non-interacting with mass-energy and the other interacting with it. Just like you need a “ground” or a “base” to position some particle or energy, you require a background structure. This is the first field. All forces appear only in the second field, which is governed simply by the laws of conservation, which generates inertia of restoration. Only if one comes out of the over-dependence on “mathematics” that does not conform to logical consistency, one can see clearly.
basudeba
contd from 26:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisStabilization means balancing two opposite forces. Thus, interaction is implicit in stabilization. If you move towards quantum model of gravity, you must first explain what it means physically (not mathematically), because the force is a physical one. There are no complex forces just like there are no complex spaces. We had already shown the fallacy in the concept of GR. If the frame of reference does not include the launching base, the people in the rocket will not see the motion of the rocket with reference to the base outside. If it includes the base, then they will know that they are accelerating. The same is true for light signals. If the light signal is emanated from outside the rocket, the observer inside can see the outside and understand its change of direction. If the outside frame is not considered, the light pulse has to come from within the rocket; hence it would move straight.
Basically what Newton said is that the apple and the Earth are at rest. The apple moves to meet the Earth due to gravity. What Einstein said is that both the apple and the Earth are at rest. The space in between them curves, so that the apple and the Earth come closer to meet. This was based on the experiments of his teachers, who were trying to solve some physical problems related to curved metal sheets when heated. But that was a wrong analogy. The metal sheets curved not due to gravity, but due to application of heat energy. Thus, GR should show that causes the curvature of a non-physical space-time. In fact, you are asking the same question.
Regards,
basudeba
Dear Mr(Ms) Basudeba, I presume your above comment (24) is in reference to my preceding one. If so, I am glad it has inspired further thoughts in you; and if I may address your concerns here,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTo me, conceptually, all forces are not only similar, but are also brought about by the radiaton at the various wavelengths (or frequencies), to, naturally, induce motion.
If the radiaton mass is m, energy e, velocity c and frequency in the (parent) photon is f (or time period between radiatons = 1/f), then the force it exerts on, say, an atom will be 2mc (that is, mc on impact or absorption; and mc at recoil or re-emissiom).
Now, Force (F) is rate of change of momentum, or,
F= 2mc/(1/f) = 2mcf
It is thus seen that force is directly proportional to frequency.
For instance, f is maximum at the atom's nuclear surface where frequeny is highest. For more exciting details to further your thoughts, please do check out: http://www.sittampalam.net/MassEnergy.htm and http://www.sittampalam.net/Synopsis.htm.
Thank you.
Dear Madam,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThanks for the clarification. We had gone through your site cursorily and will devote more time to analyze it fully.
You have said “all forces are not only similar, but are also brought about by the radiaton at the various wavelengths (or frequencies), to, naturally, induce motion. If the radiaton mass is m, energy e, velocity c and frequency in the (parent) photon is f…..”. The question is what do you mean by radiation and how does it originate? How the radiaton acquires mass, energy, velocity and frequency?
Regards,
basudeba
You stated "To me, conceptually, all forces are not only similar, but are also brought about by the radiaton at the various wavelengths (or frequencies), to, naturally, induce motion."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI have also query similar to query as raised by Basudeba. Presumably, initially there may be only one force and different forces may be brought out by the radiations at different wave length. This gives rise to an intuitional thought that in the begining there might be one uniform non-differentiated analogue Energy Field which somehow got differentiated as a discrete field( due to creation of photons) and different forces ( energies) came into existence due to radiations of different frequencies. Here, there are two issues : one is the appearance of discreteness due to creation of radiations (photons) and second one is the propagation of radiations at different frequencies. In the above model, a nos. of further issues arise :
1) Why an analogue energy field was converted to some discrete field with photon as the basic discrete unit.
ii) Why and how radiations of different frequencies ( or wave length) came into existence to create different forces.
iii) As Basudeba has pointed out, How and why radiations convert to mass. In other words, how same stuff of matter and energy appeared as both matter ( mass) and energy. One transformation of common stuff( of mass- energy) appears as matter, having totally different characteristics than energy in which motion is induced by same energy
I appreciate your analogy of positively and charged particles exhibiting different external characteristics to illustrate the appearance of matter and energy from same common energy-matter stuff. But some how, our scientific concepts about charges and their creation thereof are not fully understood as will be evident from following points
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisi) When we use the word "charged particle" what does it implies? Discrete particles of some stuff ( other than energy and matter) which we call charge? OR matter particles imbued with some stuff called charge? Can charge exist without matter particles?
ii) Of course, there is difference between positively and negatively charged particles as evinced from their direction of motion i.e attraction or repulsion. However, except this external effect of motion, there should be some difference in the internal structure ( or to the intrinsic of a charge since we do not know any thing about structure of a charge and many people may like to treat the word structure for a charge as redundant) of positive and negative charges .
What is that difference in the internal basic of positive and negative charge?
iii) How and why two types of charges were created?
Analogy of positive and negative charges may not be fully applicable upon energy and mass. In case of charges, there is difference in externally visible direction of motion only. We know nothing about the internal to positive and negative charges. But in case of energy and matter, there are drastic and clearly visible internal and external differences in the characteristics. Localization ( matter) Vs non localization ( energy), self propagation ( energy) vs induced propagation ( matter), internal hierarchical structure ( matter) Vs nil internal structure ( or lack of our knowledge about internal structure) in case of energy.
By sequencial time evolution of matter particles, I meant to state that in case of matter particles aggregate to produce higher category particles. For example, in case of atomic matter, quarks club ( or aggregate) to form protons and neutrons. Further neutrons and protons aggregate and club to from atomic nuclii which further club with electrons to create atoms. Atoms further club to form molecules. In this way, there is a hierarchical aggregations of matter particles. But in case of energy particles ( photons and gluons), we have not observed any aggregation. Further, there should be some difference in the gluons and photons also since they exhibit different functions under different environment
Further to 31
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI appreciate and understand your concept two fields -- an internal non-interacting field which serves as "ground" or base or background structure one and second one as an external field of mass-energy. Presumably second field of mass-energy might be emanating out from first background field. Before appearance of second field, there might not be any energy-matter. Though, conceptually, I agree with the notion of two fields but our current scientific understanding of these concepts is not clear and complete on a nos. of issues:
i) A Field per say is not any physical stuff but it is the name given to a spatial territory within which influence of some physical stuff is perceptible at a distance ( lines of force). Background field, which you have stated as non-interacting, should also be comprising of some physical stuff. What is that physical stuff?
ii) As already stated, intuitively it appears that external interacting field of energy-matter might have emanated from internal background field. What mechanism led to further time evolution of external energy-matter field from background field?
iii) Though we do not comprehend fully difference between a field and energy but definitely there should be some difference. In case of external energy-matter field, we can visualize it as aggregation of some discrete charges. Energy is self propagating and this might have had emanated out from discrete charges due to some physical mechanism. We don't know about that physical mechanism which led to the creation of energy from field of charges.
You stated "Stabilization means balancing two opposite forces. Thus, interaction is implicit in stabilization."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI agree with your above statement but by stating this
you are supporting the notion that gravity is some force due to which stabilization process is set in. But we do not know the genesis of this force -- whether emanating out from some sub-atomic particle within matter( quantum model) Or due to interaction between sub atomic particles of one body and other one ( Newtonian) Or interaction between matter particles and space ( Einstein's GR model). In case of Einstein's GR model, space should be comprising of some physicality for creation of curvature ( interaction between matter and energy). Nonetheless the model of of gravity, it should be a force whether of attraction or repulsion or for stabilization with some opposing force.
There is also the possibility that gravity might be emanating neither from the above model in which matter and space are involved. Gravitational force might be dawning upon physical matter from some higher dimensional background stuff or field
We are down in the world of Quantum Mechanics.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt has 3 characterists-It is weird
It is not the world of common sense
There are no certainties,only
probabilites.
To Eugene Sittampalam
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAfter posting my comments at # 30, I made a preliminary study of first few paras of your papers as submitted to Physical Review D. A preliminary study itself has generated many thought provoking issues. I share some of these issues with you and other readers.
For the sake of comprehending and clear understanding of the Nature at basic level, I start with the most simplified version of Nature at the basic most level as known to Physics of the day. Take the case of a single Photon with frequency one. I agree with your concept that a photon may be the absolute minimum but CONSTANT energy content with some minimum mass and minimum frequency. A minimum frequency correspond to maximum wave length. As such, a single photon with minimum frequency, with integral one, may have wave length running into even light years
I agree with your concept that a single photon may be the absolute minimum but constant energy content which Nature allows. But energy content of a single photon is also related to its frequency. So minimum energy content which Nature may allow is the energy content of ONE SINGLE photon with MINIMUM FREQUENCY allowable. It has been found that frequency varies in integral multiple nos. A single photon with minimum frequency of one carries some minimum energy content. When its frequency is doubled i.e made 2, it also carries double of the energy. What is the physical meaning of the frequency ( or wave length ) of a photon? At the most, which I can comprehend is that frequency of a photon indicates nos. of times its electric/magnetic field fluctuates per unit of time. Now if there is a single photon with minimum frequency of one, its electric/magnetic field should fluctuate once only. If frequency is doubled implying per unit time now field should fluctuate twice and energy content should also be doubled.
For mental grasp of any concept, intuitive understanding and physical visualization of the concept are imperative. When I tend to grasp the concept of a SINGLE PHOTON and relate it to its frequency, I face a nos. of roadblocks on the way to understanding. I am pointing towards some of the roadblocks below:
i) When frequency of a single photon is doubled from minimum one, implying nos. of times field fluctuate is doubled, how the energy of photon is doubled from physical paradigm?
ii) Wave length is related inversely to wave length. A single photon with minimum frequency will also have minimum energy but maximum wave length.
Further to comment 35
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf wave length of a photon has some spatial implications, maximum wave length may rum into distance running into even million of light years. Therefore, a minimum content of energy which Nature can allow, as placed in a single photon with minimum frequency of integral one, will have max. wave length running into million of light years. What a seemingly contradiction in Nature. Minimum energy content may be packed in a spatial outreach running into million of light year though intuitively min energy content should be compressed in minimum space.
iii) Scientists have also observed the wave behavior of even a single photon with some frequency in double slit experiment. Though not studied, wave bahavior of a single photon with MINIMUM frequency of integral one may also be present in Nature. It is almost impossible to comprehend at mental level both wave behavor and particle character ( photon) of energy.
Strictly speaking, it is difficult to comprehend even wave character only of a single photon
iv) Why frequency of a single photon changes in integral multiples? Why should it not change in some fractional nos. All integral multiples and fractions are arbitrary inventions of human mental construct. Between any two nos. integral whole or fractions, we can place infinite nos. and each of this can be treated as integral one. As such, change of frequency of a single photon in SOME INTEGRAL multiples may also be only arbitrary chosen by us as per our current knowledge and understanding. What is the actual minimum, we may not be knowing.
v)Quantum Mechanics allows quantum character of attributes of photons and sub atomic particles. It implies frequency ( and wave length) and energy of a single photon at any time may be superposition of a nos. of frequencies and energies occupying a wide range of values. How to visualize physically the multiple values of minimum energy content of Nature which is a single Photon with minimum frequency of integral one.
What I have tried to highlight in above comments is that when we start with the most simplified version of Nature say a single photon with min. frequency of integral one, a nos. of new issues crop up which are many many times more complex and difficult to address in fully satisfactorily manner.
Dear Sir,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA charged particle is a particle showing positive charge that moves out from the center of mass or negative charge that confines a positive charge. All particles are a composite of the above two charges. Thus, charge stands for a characteristic - the creative competence of a particle. Since the particle comprises of two different charges, they must interact through a local field. The charge is experienced through this local field as differentiated from the background structure.
Contrary to Coulomb’s law, only similar charges attract and opposite charges differentiate as shown below. Since all particles have both charges, and since the positive charge of protons are a little less than +1, in the presence of a confining electron, the net charge becomes slightly negative. Since this is equal to the charge of a neutron, which shows not zero, but a residual negative charge, both interact. In this interaction, the positive component becomes more. Thus, it is differentiated as a proton to start the n-p chain. The negative charge acts as a container, whereas the positive charge acts as the contained.
However, except this external effect of motion, there should be some difference in the internal structure ( or to the intrinsic of a charge since we do not know any thing about structure of a charge and many people may like to treat the word structure for a charge as redundant) of positive and negative charges. What is that difference in the internal basic of positive and negative charge? Only two types of charges were created because of parity and conservation laws.
Mass by itself is localized. Charge by itself generates motion in mass – hence non-localized. Charge does not have self-energy, as it is a characteristic of mass only. A fundamental characteristic does not have another characteristic. Both charges have mutually opposite direction due to parity and conservation laws.
contd from 37.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe segregation of energy is also evident in various ways. The fundamental interactions are nothing but these segregations. Since charge is a characteristic of matter, and since only similar, but deficient charges interact with each other (which sometimes gives the appearance of opposites attracting each other – remember, according to Coulomb’s law, interaction between charge-neutral particles and charges particles is not permitted, which is obviously wrong), the nature of segregation of matter determines the interaction. In gravitational interaction the two bodies revolve around their barycenter, and the distance from barycenter from their centers of mass is related to the masses of two bodies. This is one example of segregation.
The photons and gluons are distinctly different. The mass-less photon is not a “particle”, as particles, being discrete, must have mass. It is the emitted excess energy of a particle moving through its inertia only through the field. The disturbance appears as light. This can explain its constant velocity and variation of its velocity in different field densities. Gluons are the smallest units of positive charge that are immediately confined by the opposite charge. Both must have a confined field for their interaction, making it a three fold structure. This restricts their total number to 8 different types.
You are right that “Before appearance of second field, there might not be any energy-matter”, as is generally known and understood. However, we are not inclined to discuss this in the present forum. The same is also for your queries on gravity.
Regards, basudeba
"Thus, charge stands for a characteristic - the creative competence of a particle"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhen we describe an entity or phenomenon, description may be expressed in different semantics mostly expressing some attribute of the entity. But without describing the tangible realty of the entity or phenomenon in physical terms, description is not complete and makes complete sense. For example, if one has to describe water , stating merely that water is that which quenches thirst will not make full sense. Apart from the description that water quenches thirst, description of water as tangible physical realty having some stuff comprising of H and O atoms and of its structure, which has been studied by Scientists, shall make some sense. Further water is also that which can be seen, touched and tasted by respective senses. And if one can have subjective experience of water thru respective senses, he/she will also realize personally what water is ?
On similar lines as above, it is right that charge could be described as creative competence of a particle but that is only one sketchy semantic description of some realty. I am not saying that charge should be detectable and describable thru senses as in case of water but describing it as merely creative competence of particle also does not describe the tangible realty of charge. The way water comprises of some physical stuff of H and O atoms and it has some internal structure and bonding, similarly charge should also be comprising of some physical stuff and it should have some internal structure or some intrinsic basic ( if one does not relish the term structure for charge). Any physical realty should be comprising of some stuff and it should have some structure or internal basic. What I wanted to highlight in my comments was that though charge is a tangible realty but the stuff of which it is composed of and its internal basic is yet not known to Science. Since both positive and negative charges behave differently, there must be some difference in the internal basic of the stuff of which charges are composed of.
"Since the particle comprises of two different charges, they must interact through a local field."
Are " particles of matter" and "particles of charge" synonymous as different expressions of same realty the way water and H2O express same physical realty.
Further to 39
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThough not knowing in scientific terms, but conceptually and intuitively, I think "particles of charge" or simply charge or charge field is an expression of some physical realty different than matter and even energy.
I think charge is more fundamental than matter and energy and charge is the precursor of energy which in turn is the precursor of matter in some cause-effect relation chain.
"Since charge is a characteristic of matter, and since only similar, but deficient charges interact with each other"
Charge may be due to some stuff other than matter and energy though it may manifest thru matter and hence may be treated as characteristic of matter but strictly speaking it is not the characteristic of matter. As an analogy, when Sun light falls on the water in a pound, we may say that shining is the attribute of water but strictly speaking genesis of shining is in Sun light and not in water. Similarly genesis of charge may be in some physical realty, other than energy and matter, but it may express thru medium of matter.
When two charges interact thro' a local field, it means from the "physical stuff" of the charge " something" should emanate out in the local spatial boundary of the charge. Then only interaction can accomplish. If "something" may not emanate out in the local boundary, implying local space remaining same with or without charge, how interaction can take place. Apart from the stuff of which the charge is composed of, our scientific understanding of that "something" is also almost rudimentary.
'Mass by itself is localized. Charge by itself generates motion in mass – hence non-localized. Charge does not have self-energy, as it is a characteristic of mass only"
If charge is non-localized, nil self energy, how it can generate motion in matter. Motion in matter can be generated by a physical entity which has self energy while ignoring the backward chain of entities possessing motion potential in the cause-effect relation. Current Scientific understanding dictates that motion is generated by energy. If motion is also produced by charge, how to distinguish it from energy.
Without marking an emphatic note, I thing Charge, energy and matter are created in some cause-effect relation in the given sequence. However, scientific physical mechanism of this sequence is not known. After creation of energy and matter thereof, charge may imbue with matter. Nevertheless of imbuing, charge remains distinct from matter. Charge my be the potential aspect of energy which is always kinetic.
Dear Sir,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYour example of water is not appropriate for many reasons. That water quenches thirst, is only one of its characteristics, and not all of its characteristics. If you describe ALL characteristics of water, it is not semantics, but a scientific statement that makes full sense. H and O are not water, but the constituents (avayava) of something called water (avayavee) that exhibits different characteristics from those of either H or O or their characteristics combined together. Thus, it has its own identity apart from its constituents. This differentiation is very important, because otherwise we cannot describe individual particles, as all are constituted of the same stuff. This is also important because this only can explain different manifestations of the same one force. What we wanted to tell is that you cannot describe matter in any other way. It is because; we perceive matter in two different ways. What we see is the radiation emanated out of matter that interacts with our eyes. We do not see matter. But when we touch, we cut out the radiation and touch the mass directly. Thus, what we see, we cannot touch or feel. What we feel, we do not see. These two has to be described differently. Mass cannot be described in any other way than “it”. The object can only be described by its perceivable characteristics. Charge has only one characteristic – to couple objects with one another to create different particles. You must remember that only matter has internal structure and charge. Bare charge is non-existent. Internal structure is not the same as charge. Thus, what we described is not semantics. We have discussed these defining issues in a book, which is available free of cost to scientists and scientific institutions. You can get a copy by sending your postal address.
You ask: “Are "particles of matter" and "particles of charge" synonymous as different expressions of same realty”. The answer is they represent two aspects of the same reality that are perceived differently. If you compare matter as the background structure, charge is the effect of the local field, which draws from the background structure. If it overdraws, it appears as matter with charge (rayi). If it under-draws, it appears as energy (praana). Thus, charge is not more fundamental than matter and energy and charge is not the precursor of energy.
Regards,
basudeba
contd from 41
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYour example of sun-light falling on a pond is not appropriate, because if sun-light falls on a piece of charcoal, it does not shine. This shows that shining or otherwise is a property of the object revealed and not the property of the light.
When two charges interact through a local field, it does not mean: “from the "physical stuff" of the charge "something" should emanate out in the local spatial boundary of the charge”. This is because charge interaction between two particles (there is no bare charge) leads to redistribution of their mass and energy to form new particles. Local field comes into play only for motion or stabilization of particles. Charge interaction involves internal changes of particles not involving the local field actively, though it may act passively. Only the interactions other than gravity show this characteristic. Gravity characterizes local field interactions.
Your statement: “If charge is non-localized, nil self energy, how it can generate motion in matter” is self-contradictory. If charge is localized, it cannot generate motion, as motion implies continuous change in locality. Charge is also energy – hence it cannot be described as having self-energy. Sugar has sweetness. But can you say sweet has sweetness?
You are right that: “Motion in matter can be generated by a physical entity which has self energy” and that “motion is generated by energy”. The concept of self-energy cannot be applied to charge, but to the particle having charge. Though charge has energy, it is not the same as energy. Charge is always related to internal structure of a particle. Motion is never related to internal structure of a particle. This distinguishes charge from energy.
You are right that: “Charge, energy and matter are created in some cause-effect relation in the given sequence”. We will discuss the scientific physical mechanism of this sequence at the appropriate time in the appropriate forum.
Regards,
basudeba
Respected Mr Basudeba,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnalogy of description of water by stating as "quenching of thirst" was at the most an analogy. No analogy can be fully correct and always approximate the situation in comparison.
Any analogy is an attempt to convey the sense, as such, none of the analogy should be taken literally. What is important is the hidden meaning behind analogy which should be focussed. In view of this, what I meant to convey was that the way water can not not be described fully as something quenching thirst ( Can it be?) similarly a statement that charge is the creative competence of matter to couple also is also not sufficient to describe charge. Water can be described thru a nos. of attributes, sensed thro' nos. of senses and it has its own stuff and internal structure and bonding forces. A person having all senses and also having some scientific knowledge about H, O and H20 is capable of describing all the attributes of water, can have subjective experience of water and also develop some scientific understanding. But a blind person having no scientific knowledge and also having no taste sense can describe water at the most by the touch of sense only. His description of water thru touch sense is incomplete than a normal person having all senses and also having some scientific knowledge. INCAPABILITY OF DESCRIPTION OF ANY ENTITY OR PHENOMENON IN COMPLETE DETAILS IN ALL THE CHARACTERISTICS OR PHYSICALITY OF STUFF OF ITS COMPOSITION DOES NOT AMOUNTS TO ABSENCE OF CHARACTERISTICS OR STUFF. Similarly if we can describe charge at the max. by stating it as creative competence of matter should not imply that there may not be some other attributes or physicality of charge.
You stated that charge has only one characteristic – to couple objects with one another to create different particles and bare charge is non-existent. you also stated that When two charges interact through a local field, it does not mean: “from the "physical stuff" of the charge "something" should emanate out in the local spatial boundary of the charge”.
You also stated in # 38 Gluons are the smallest units of positive charge that are immediately confined by the opposite charge.
Your above two quotes appear self contradictory. From first quote, charge appears some attribute but second quote points to charge is an entity different than matter( carrying some physical stuff). If you do not treat charge as an independent existential entity, how gluon ( total 8 nos.) as smallest and independent units of charge can appear in existence?
Cont from 43
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is a scientific fact that gluons and quarks plasma has independent existence, independent of nucleons, as per studies of Lawrence Berkley Lab.
Even if we may agree, for the time being, that charge has no independent physicality, question arises from where attribute ( Guna) of creative competence emerges out? Sweetness in lemon juice emerges from sugar and coolness comes from heat. Again it is an analogy only to convey an idea and please do not take analogy literally. Similarly In matter also, competence ( Guna) of coupling should emerge out from some entity carrying some physicality.
You have stated that " particles of matter" and "particles of charge" they represent two aspects of the same reality that are perceived differently. In this regard, all the entities of Universe represent same realty. You have also supported this view , in the context of different attributes of H20 than H or O) this is also important because this only can explain different manifestations of the same one force.
What I am trying to highlight is that despite all the entities of Universe emanating out from one stuff or force ( a force should also comprise of some physical realty) in cause-effect sequential chain , functionally those entities are different physical existences carrying their own physical realt. In view of this, though charge, energy and matter being different manifestation of same force, they are distinct entities having their own physicality. What I am trying to highlight is the physicality of charge which I think is different than that of matter and energy.
You stated that "If you compare matter as the background structure, charge is the effect of the local field, which draws from the background structure. If it overdraws, it appears as matter with charge (rayi). If it under-draws, it appears as energy (praana)."
Draw? What to draw from matter? Any drawl should pertain
to "something" having some physicality. That is why I have been reiterating that "something" should come out from charge, which may also be "something" carrying some physicality, in the spatial boundary of a charge to create a field. If nothing may come out from charge in the spatial boundary, how boundary shall differentiate from a boundary without charge. And if no change takes place in spatial boundary, how field will be created. Our inability to know or describe " something" of charge or " something" of that emanating from charge in the spatial boundary should not preclude the existence of those "something"
Dear Sir,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe are sorry for offending your sensibilities, if any. Kindly excuse us.
We do not see any contradiction reported in the last para of your post at #43. We have agreed that charge has two opposite manifestations. We meant both types of charge are characteristics of matter. Further, earlier we have said that a particle is mass confined by energy, which means dominance of negative charge over positive charge. Since there is no true void, due to conservation laws, the field outside it must show the opposite characteristic. Thus, there appears to be no contradiction. If you can show other characteristics of charge, you are welcome. We agree that the quark-gluon plasma is a scientifically verified fact. But this in no ways invalidates our position. Can you show independent existence of quarks and gluons by themselves?
Your example of lemon juice is not appropriate, because you are citing sugar, which is matter with characteristic sweetness and heat, which is a characteristic of matter in a particular state. Analogy is possible only in the case of comparable characteristics. Characteristics must be assumed as it is commonly understood through the description or observation expressed in words. Thus, it has to be taken literally.
We have told you earlier that while you are approaching the one from many, we are explaining many from one. Thus, there are bound to be differences in our perception. Hence we terminate this correspondence here.
Regards,
basudeba
Why is it presumed that elementary particles must be point-like? Is it not possible that quarks, for example, could be configured as a spherical shell or some other dimensional construct? If the quark did have dimensional structure, why would that infer that they are composed of even more fundamental point-like particles?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI have read your feature article "The Inner Life of Quarks" by Don Lincoln. Apart from the fact that I consider the content highly speculative, I would like to make two general comments.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFirst, on page 38, in the box "In Brief", you write that there are "12 known elementary particles" and that they are "tiny balls", whereas on page 39, in another box "The Standard Model", one can count the particles to be 17. Therefore, there is some inconsistency in the counting of particles, and you are obviously not using the same scheme to count the particles in both boxes. In fact, I think it is rather difficult to speak about the number of particles in the Standard Model of particle physics, and as we can see it can become mis-leading. The number of particles highly depend on if you want to count the antiparticles, the different generations, the different colors of quarks, etc. It would be much better not to give a total number of particles, since it depends on what you mean. I also do not like the usage of "tiny balls".
Second, you write on page 39 that "If quarks and leptons are not fundamental at all, and smaller bits do in fact exist, their presence will force extensive revisions of our theories." Why is that? In fact, the Standard Model works extremely well, and is the most accurate description of physics today. I think it is not correct to talk about extensive revisions, but rather revisions and updates. The above quoted sentence sends strong signals that something is totally wrong. Despite the fact that the Standard Model exists for elementary particles, the periodic table for elements has not been abandoned. I guess what you want to say is that a new theory has to be formulated on the subquark level, which is the correct description on that level.