Hi!

I have a question to anyone interested from particle physics. After all the staff said and written about el. particles one simple question still remains unanswered. How looks like the elementary particles? What is their geometric form? They are not little rotating spheres for sure (even the electron and neutrino probably have some kind of internal structure). The Standard model, String models and etc just can't give any sensible idea for the geometric form of particles.

I am developing an independent model called 'Snake Model'. In it I had considered particles like 'open strings', or snakes for shorter. Particles are considered moving through the space just
like a snake on the beach.

What is the chance for the snake-like form of the particles?

Welcome to sciforums, Xgen. :)

Before people start complaing about a new idea, I will offer an opinion. I am a beginner at all this particle physics business, but so far it seems to me that nobody has a definite answer to your question. That being the case, it seems to me perfectly reasonable to use any model you wish to picture or imagine particles as long as it conforms to known principles.

Every experiment heretofore completed has indicated that the electrons and quarks are essentially geometric points. They do not have any sort of boundary or size or volume, at least not in any classical sense.

The mathematical models we use predict that the leptons (electron, muon, and tau) and quarks (up, down, strange, charm, top, bottom) should be completely fundamental, with no decay modes, no internal watchworks, no internal structure.

I have the opinion that "a snake on the beach" has as little to do with particle physics as a steaming pile of bear shit has to do with playing the cello.

- Warren

If your snake model has any observable consequences, it might be useful; otherwise it just doesn't add anything to our knowledge of fundamental particles. The question you need to answer is: does your model make any new predictions which distinguishes it from other pictures? If yes, can you suggest an appropriate observation or test to verify those predictions? If no, the physics community will probably not be interested.

Thank you all for the replies.

Thank you for the replies.

'Snake Model' is just in it infant age so it can not be expected to explain everything.

chroot , you are not right. If there is some evidence that the 12 elementary particles you mensioned are points (i.e spheres) without any internal features and structure or anything I am curious to here what it is. As much as I know there is experiments that clearly showed that particles have not spherical but rather ring-like form. That is how all string models had emerge! If particles are point-like and without any structure what makes them different? Where come from their mass, charge, spin and so on? All groups theories (SU2, SU3, SU6...) are consistent with some kind on spacial nonsymetry.

In the future I will present more evidences for the snake-like form and movement of particles. Just now I have in mind at least 5-6 well-known facts which lead directly to the snakelike representation. I think that are more important not the raw experimental data , which can have arbitrary interpretation, but rather logical proofes. If I can cite Einstein:

'You will find the truth for a theory not with your eyes but with your mind."

Anyone interested from the 'Snake Model' can see my web page:

http://free.top.bg/xgen/Physics/SnakeProject/SnakeProject.html

Originally posted by Xgen
If there is some evidence that the 12 elementary particles you mensioned are points (i.e spheres) without any internal features and structure or anything I am curious to here what it is.
Scattering experiments. Bazillions of them.
As much as I know there is experiments that clearly showed that particles have not spherical but rather ring-like form. That is how all string models had emerge!
Now it's my turn to tell you that you're wrong.
If particles are point-like and without any structure what makes them different? Where come from their mass, charge, spin and so on?
We don't know. This doesn't have anything to do with them being or not being point-like.
Just now I have in mind at least 5-6 well-known facts which lead directly to the snakelike representation.
Mainstream science has hundreds of thousands of well-known facts that lead directly to the conclusion that your theory is crap.
I think that are more important not the raw experimental datawhich can have arbitrary interpretation, but rather logical proofes.
There is nothing in science more important than experimental data.
'You will find the truth for a theory not with your eyes but with your mind."
Quoting Einstein does not enhance the credibility of your theory.

- Warren

chroot,

scattering experiments do NOT prove that particles are points. They only prove that in scales greater than 10^-16 m, they acts like points. It is like a car coming from a distance, when it is far you see it like point, when it come closer you begin to see it's details .

Who told you that elementary particles size is greater than 10^-16 m?

Originally posted by Xgen
scattering experiments do NOT prove that particles are points. They only prove that in scales greater than 10^-16 m, they acts like points.
In the positivist approach to science: if it acts like a point, it's a point. At least mathematically.

Besides, you're misinterpreting experimental precision. I'm not sure where you got your 10^-16 m number, but let's assume it's correct. The experiment is telling us that electrons, etc. cannot be any more than 10^-16 m in size. That's it. They could be less than this size, or they could have zero size. The experiment cannot tell us it they have specifically zero size, since all experiments are prone to error. 10^-16 m is, of course, smaller than nuclear dimensions. At these kinds of separation, the internal structure of particles like the proton and neutron become tremendously important. Why do you think that the electron, if it had internal structure, would not display that structure at scales of 10^-16 m?

- Warren

To see that electron and etc is not a point we must descend to sizes below 10^-16 m. Also the time interval dt at which is realized the experiment should be low enough.

I am not saying that electron have internal structure. I am saying that it have non-spherical form. That is 2 different things.
It's spin,charge and mass are result from it's form.

Why you don't see it? May be you don't look where it should. Spin and magnetic interactions are not space symetrical. You should know for the neutrino 'helicity' and CP-violation. The only thing that may cause particles features is their's form.

Originally posted by Xgen
It's spin,charge and mass are result from it's form.
Why is this necessarily true? Because you say so?
The only thing that may cause particles features is their's form.
Why is this necessarily true? Because you say so?

- Warren

Xgen,

The ideas you are proposing are interesting, but shouldn't have you worked a little bit more on your theory before you posted a thread about it???

I checked out your website, but it really didn't explain your theory.

Remember, simpler is always better. Your theory seems to require many dimensions. Maybe if you gave a more detailed explanation of your ideas, people on these forums can give you more constructive responses.

Tom

String theory solves the `renormalizing` problems with point like particles like the electron

eg (simply) an electron is negatively charged if it is a small ball as you shrink it the two sides (both negative) require a bigger and bigger force to hold it together.

The snake BTW could be the actual space/time particle (the quanta) and it`s wriggling gives rise to all the particles...

It may have a bearing on particle physics (at accelerator energies) from compactifications of perturbative heterotic string theories and M-theory.

Prosoothus,

What kind of expanation do you need? Ask me a question and if I can I will answer you.

May be you are disturbed from the fact that I represent 'snake-particles' geometrically, without giving any mathematical formulation. I can define 'snakes' mathematically, but this will take some time. Accually the 'snake' is a collection of internal states (quantum states) that are so related that the snake moves as first state becomes last, the second first and so on.

The imortant thing about snakes is the so called 'basic dimension'. The mathematical expression of snakes will not add much to this concept The geometric representation always would be more clear. At this moment the 'Snake Model' is build of logical considerations, if you need strictly proven mathematics you would have to wait for awhile.

chroot,

Yes I say that the form of particles determine theirs features. Of cource everything is much more complex, but we should start from somewhere. Do you have better idea?

blobrana,

If you can explain me what you mean may be we can find common language. I don't think that wriggling of some BTW snake (what the hell is that?) 'gives rise to all the particles'. In my theory vacuum gives rise to all the particles.

The simplest theory's of strings envisage space composed of tiny tiny loops and strings. They vibrate in at least 10 dimensions, the knots and frequencies give rise to the pr0perties of space ,time ,and particles.

The newer theories have expanded this to `membranes` that give rise to this foamy space/time.

blobrana,

I am not sure that understand what 'foamy space/time' means. I don't know how exactly my Snake Model is related to strings models. I am wondering if it is possible the snake movement (to see it download snakedemo.exe from my web page) to be intepreted as some kind of vibratation. May be this will explain what is going on down there. Snake-like movement is periodic, it is different only with this that snake translates while vibrating.

SRY,
I may have assumed a different question.
(and i use a different computer system, can`t download .exe)

Snake-like movement is periodic- it has a resonance/note?

it is different only with this that snake translates while vibrating.- like a geometric translation, similar to spin-networks ?

?

There is probably no model of fundamental particles which is both an accurate representation and also a model that the human mind can visualize.

What goes on in the Quantum World cannot be visualized by minds conditioned by Classical world experiences.

Neils Bohr once gave an interesting analogy when questioned about the particle wave duality problem. Somebody asked him what was really there: Particles or waves.?

In reply, he first described a well known optical illusion, namely a drawing which could be viewed as a black vase or as two profiles facing each other. It is easy to see the vase or the profiles, but impossible to actually see both simultaneously.

He then asked and answered the question: What is really there: A vase or two profiles?

His answer: Neither. What is really there is black ink on white paper.

He was attempting to indicate that what we see are measurements on our instruments. What is really there is something else. In the case of the illusion, we can describe what is really there. In the case of Quantum phenomena, we cannot describe what is really there.

blobrana ,

oh, sorry. What is your OS?
I am thinking about questions you rised. I do not feel competent enough to answer so I will first consult specialists.
Particles interactions in my model are very complex. Everything depends from the geometry. There is a bunch of unstable and very short living particles, so called 'virtual particles'. We observe them as peaks in the energy. If string models explain this with some kind of resonance, in Snake Model it is not needed at all.
Accualy the Snake Model is quite different than string models.

Dinosaur,

you had choosen very delicate way to imply that any geometric representation is wrong. I do not agree. Had you heared saying - 'a picture costs as a thousend words'. I must assure you that Snake Model is not a clasical model.. Yes in it everything is a question of geometry. But without geometry mathematics becomes very abstract and hard to understand. I think that geometric representation is the most final stage from a theory. Every serious theory for particles must supply some kind of geometric representation not only for particles but and for their's interactions and cross-sections.

I agree with you that quantum -mechaniks, -field-theory and -electro-dynamics can not give a complete describtion of particles and theirs interactions. This is very clear from the fact that they can not propose a geometry of the particles interactions. But a failure of one thery does not means that all theories are also helpless.

There must be some kind of reality check for every theory (i.e relevance with physical reality) and I propose this to be the requirment for geometric representation.

Pay attention children: this is what happens when you mistake a bunch of Hawking paperbacks for an education...

- Warren