Hi, everybody it has been quite a long time from the last time I posted, but i have several very tricky questions when it comes to size of particles: Physicists say that particles like electrons and quarks are dimensionless-but are they really infinitely small particles? Because saying something is infinitely small is not the same as saying it is dimensionless-these terms are entirely different and everybody is ignoring these 2 curcial terms in understanding "dimensionlessness" and "infinitely small". Infinitely small means there is no limit on how small particle or anything else is, while when you say dimensionless-than there is obviously a lower limit of how small particle can get-you see what I mean, also dimensionless particle actually means that electron or quark or any other dimensionless particle does not exist-not in a physical sense, only electric/energy field exists, but there is not particle that exists at all-here is pretty good explanation of this: http://www.fnal.gov/pub/today/archive/archive_2013/today13-02-15_NutshellReadMore.html Also, just because they are elementary, structureless particles it does not mean they are dimensionless/-meaning they do not exist but are simply electric fields from which inside of them there are cloud of virtual particles, because in order to exist, something/anything/everything has to have physical size/dimensions (and that electric field/cloud of virtual particles does have physical size). In short: Quantum Field Theory, the electron has no height, width, or physical measurements; it is a dimensionless particle-which means it does not exist at all. However, by the best current model, the electron as particle that does not exist is surrounded by electric energy field and a cloud of virtual particles inside of that electric field -- and that cloud should has a measurable shape. The shape of that cloud is currently a highly sought after, but unanswered question in Physics -- though, current experiments suggest a sphere (within error). So you see, there is no particle's existence, electrons, quarks and all other dimensionless particles are not actually particles at all, electrons/quarks and all other so-called dimensionless particles are simply and that name/phrase is totally wrong, because every electron/quark really is electric energy field and a cloud of virtual particles inside of that electric field. The only way we can interpret data is through the filter of a model. The current "best" model that we use is the Standard Model of Particle Physics. The mathematical framework for the Standard Model of Particle Physics is Quantum Field Theory (QFT). By QFT, an electron is a dimensionless point which has an associated field. Anywhere in space, at any time, there are always particle/antiparticle pairs popping in-and-out of existence; and, by QFT, the particle's field leads to a sea of virtual particles surrounding the dimensionless particle. When we talk about something like "measuring the electric dipole moment" of an electron, by our model we're referring to looking for the asymmetry, or the aspherical nature, of this swarming cloud of virtual particles. At some point, we really can't separate the two -- the dimensionless electron from the cloud of virtual particles -- so we can start to treat them as the same thing. So, using a definition of "the shape of an electron" to mean the "sea of virtual particles surrounding the dimensionless point of an electron", the Standard Model predicts that the shape of an electron should be pretty, amazingly, awesomely spherical -- or at least, that any distortions in the electron's shape will be far, far too small to detect with current technology. More to the language of the model, we say that the electron has a near-zero electric dipole moment (EDM). You can think of the EDM as a measure of how "squished" a charged body is -- and so in this context, it's our measure of how spherical something is. If the EDM is zero, the object is an unsquashed sphere. But when you look at it virtual particles are also dimensionless because you basically have electron/positron pair, photon/anti-photon pair, but you would not have something like proton/anti-proton and neutron/anti-neutron for example. So, what does this all mean? Virtual particles which are also really not particles at all, since they are dimensionless (virtual electron/positron pair, for example), since they do not exist as particles-they only have effects the closer you get to middle of that cloud of virtual particles inside electric field! But however, I must warn you there are still many physicists who say that electrons and quarks and all other elementary particles do have a size/volume, no matter how small it is but they do have a size, it doesn't matter if their size is 10^-35m or 10^-100m or even lower than this, particles still have size-you see what I mean? I and they can elementary and structureless, basically made of But than there is another crucial question-what exactly is an energy field???? I mean for example, how does Earth protect itself with electromagnetic field which stops solar wind particles and extremely ultra-high cosmic energy particles-but if an energy field is merely mathematical construct, it's not something physical and does not exist in nature/real world-how exactly and what exactly stops this solar wind particles and extremely ultra-high cosmic energy particles from ever destroying all life on Earth????? Obviously there has to be something physical! So, can anyone help me??? I want to clear this once and for all. Big thanks for your time and patience!!!! I'd like to hear your opinions; from everybody-as many as possible!
What do the experiments tell us? Previously, a bunch of scientists fired ytterbium monofluoride (YbF) molecules between electrified plates, and used lasers to measure how the molecules twisted. In the end, this gave them the shape of the electrons (within error). Their experiments "suggested the electron is spherical," but they admitted that their experiment/equipment just wasn't precise enough to know. They could only offer an upper limit. A new experiment (read here: http://arxiv.org/abs/1310.7534) had roughly the same setup, except the used ThO molecules instead of YbF. But, this gave them about an order of magnitude better result. What did they find? They found that the EDM (EDM=electron dipole moment) of the electron is still basically zero (with some associated error and wiggle room). What this means is that the Standard Model hasn't been disproven. It's still hanging around. But the Standard Model already basically says any asymmetry in the shape of the electron is going to be too small, by many, many orders of magnitude, for us to pick up with our current equipment. In other words, the experiment still isn't sensitive enough, by far, to get down to the level needed to put the Standard Model to the test. Why do we care? Right now, a lot of very smart people are arguing back and forth about a theory called Supersymmetry. Supersymmetry has had a lot of road bumps over the last few years; and another prediction of Supersymmetry that could offer them a testable difference from the Standard Model is the shape of the electron. Supersymmetry suggests that the electron should be pretty warped -- far more than the Standard Model predicts. If Supersymmetry was right, and the electron was "highly" warped, then that would have been motivation to start looking for a vast, vast array of other particles and to start really scratching our chins at the Standard Model. The latest experiment, though, really makes the road ahead for Supersymmetry look pretty bleak. We also care because any variation in the electric dipole moment, no matter how small, will have huge effects for our understanding of the History of the Universe and the evolution of particles. We have a lot of other unanswered questions, like why are we in a matter-dominated (instead of light-dominated) Universe? What is Dark Matter? The shape of the electron (and therefore, the EDM) plays directly into these questions. So it means that an electron is not an actually a physical particle (because it does not possess anything physical like size, width, height/physical dimensions) but a point of energy influencing the sea of virtual particles to create the cloud of virtual particles that in turn react like a physical particle? But then how would you define what a "point of energy" is and what makes it different from a "physical particle"? If it doesn't have a physical consequence, it's an irrelevant question in physics. That's the thing, it does have physical consequences and is clearly important but I would think that if an electron turns out to be a dimensionless non-particle thats physically exists only as virtual particle reactions to the energy point, that this would have significant impact on our understanding of physics. In my head if this is true then empty space stops being empty but rather becomes like a the surface of a still lake. And the electron like something below the surface we can only see due to it creating ripples on the surface. I'm not getting across what I meant to. By "physical consequences" I meant things that you can do an experiment to actually measure. If you can't measure something, it's just navel-gazing. Incidentally, the only reason you can see electrons is exactly because of those virtual particles. All forces are carried by particles; in the case of the electron, that's usually the photon, which is the electromagnetic force. Those virtual particles are virtual photons. Sometimes, electrons will wiggle just right, and one of those photons will get energy and become a real photon and fly away, and get absorbed by another electron, and that's how you can see. Space isn't empty, virtual particles really are popping into and out of existence all the time. My understanding was that electrons and photons are two different things. I get that photons are the carrier of the electromagnetic force but I can't see how a virtual particle can turn into a photon. I get that when an electron changes energy states it either takes in or releases energy as a photon but I can't see how a virtual particle can turn into a photon. Virtual particles are created & destroyed in pairs so for a + virtual particle to turn into a photon and escape what is happening to the - particle? Also my original point still stands I think. It is possible for the electron to be an energy point which creates a 'shell' of virtual particles, and what we actually measure is the spherical haze of the probability of these virtual particles being in that particular point in this 'shell'. Sorta like an electron cloud around an atom but with nothing actually physically present in the centre. But again if virtual particles are also dimensionless-than what? They do not have physical size, meaning they do not exist at all, so how they annihilate each other when say electron and positron collide???? Electric energy field, but again I asked questions about what exactly is an energy field in the first post, I hope someone can shed more light into it. Big thanks to all, again!!!
Its something that can only be defined in time and space in it's temporal state as a particle. But it's true state does not have a descriptive equivalent in spac-time. This is why it's dimensionless...
Matter is bound energy. E=mc^2 means exactly what it says. The details of how energy becomes bound is through quantum entanglement, and the relativity that describes the propagation of bound or unbound energy at less than or equal to the speed of light will not avail you there. Any statistics that do not take entanglement dynamics into account will not avail you either. Symbols which include mathematical constructs will never offer a complete description of nature, particularly when their basis is in the static solid geometries of Euclid and Pythagoras. Real space is relativistic space. As soon as anything moves with respect to something else, you can forget about applying the geometry of Ancient Greece. Such mishappen application of geometry also worked its way into calculus, which is the reason Minkowski (Einstein's calculus prof) cannot be trusted as a physicist. He only made things worse by introducing invariant intervals based on Pythagorean geometry to describe a simultanaety that does not exist. In this universe, the only way events may ever be simultaneous is for it to be the same event viewed from different perspectives, or for the events to be entangled. Time dilation is different everywhere. Only the now of entanglement is simultaneous, and this is outside the theory of relativity because it is faster than matter or energy may propagate. Since space does not exist for pairs of entangled particles, this makes perfect relativistic sense. There is only energy and time and two quantum fields. One quantum field is at rest with respect to the creation of virtual particle pairs and entanglement instant of 'now' everywhere, which is infinitely sub-divisible time's arrow. The other quantum field is in motion at c in every direction and from every point along which energy may propagate. If a quantum field is static or in motion, it must be with respect to something else; relativity applies even to quantum fields. Space is an illusion created by energy and time. This is also why particles have no actual dimensions. The Standard Model's probability densities eliminate many of the infinities related to not having an adequate model of entanglement, and also makes a consideration of dimensions of particles largely unnecessary. I predict it will have to serve for several more decades.
Brianhardwarespecialist has an idea that gravity may be related to the static quantum field I mentioned, and also time. He may be right about that; I'm still considering what this may mean. I do know that although the Standard Model has found its most fundamental Higgs boson, and that its unique properties will require a great deal more explanation other than the idea that it is the boson that imparts inertial mass to electrons, quarks, W and Z bosons and their antiparticles. The principle of equivalence of General Relativity must be satisfied by having inertial mass equivalent to gravitational mass in some manner. Bosons may occupy the same space at the same time with other bosons or with fermions. This property makes it a piece of cake for the Higgs to impart inertial mass to itself and to atomic structure at the center of black holes and even at their event horizons (another place relativity breaks down). Because mass/energy is conserved, the Higgs mechanism requires that the inertial mass of the Higgs and that of the particles to which it lends inertia derives of slowing the particles (and itself) down to less than the speed of light. This seems to be one mechanism by which energy may become bound. Any mechanism of gravity must be capable of interacting and guiding falling objects to accelerate toward the center of mass of massive objects. It cannot require the interaction of Newton's "divine hand" or a mathematician skilled in General Relativity and Riemann geometry and instrumentation in order to sort out which direction it must fall. Unless a graviton presents evidence of itself quite soon, it is clear that the Higgs mechanism has something to do with gravity by virtue of the same mechanism it uses to impart inertial mass. The effect of the Higgs mechanism is going to be something energetic enough that it will be difficult not to notice. If a photon has no mass and accounts for interaction with atomic structure we can see, imagine what something like a photon could do if it had a substantial mass, like 125 GeV. It could probably make matter fall towards other matter by virtue of the energy it removes from the vacuum along a straight line connecting the masses, but this is only one possibility. It shouldn't resemble LeSage gravity because the mechanism has distinct differences which are obvious. All of these ideas are floating here for free. Discussions with various knowledgeable folks here at sciforums and elsewhere have shaped them, and they are presented without proof. Take whatever you may need and go run with it, or take nothing at all. Your choice.
http://www.wired.com/2014/04/quantum-theory-flow-time/ An excerpt from the article above, which attacks the problem from a thermodynamic perspective: “Now, physicists are unmasking a more fundamental source for the arrow of time: Energy disperses and objects equilibrate, they say, because of the way elementary particles become intertwined when they interact — a strange effect called “quantum entanglement.” Finally, we can understand why a cup of coffee equilibrates in a room,” said Tony Short, a quantum physicist at Bristol. “Entanglement builds up between the state of the coffee cup and the state of the room. ...Quantum uncertainty gives rise to entanglement, the putative source of the arrow of time.” Entanglement between particles operates faster than matter or energy propagates, but it is still limited initially by the speed of energy exchanges between the coffee cup and the room. And incidentally, also between the room and the center of the planet, which keeps the coffee cup on the table and the coffee inside of the cup until someone picks up the cup and drinks the coffee. Swallowing it also depends on energy exchanges between the gulp of coffee and the center of the planet, and perhaps a few muscles in the esophagus. What planet these guys think they are on, I have no idea. The Higgs was discovered in 2012, and this article appeared in 2014. What were they waiting for? Don't they even know, atomic structure isn't possible without the Higgs mechanism, whether it is entangled or not. Most likely, it very much is.
Agreed. Thanks. It was making my head hurt. I must remember not to read such junk, and I usually don't read Wired anyway, other than to see the ingredients of junk food I shouldn't eat. I must remember, they evidently use the same formula for publishing physics. That much makes perfect sense, by which I mean, it is at least consistent. You discerned that very quickly and effectively, brucep.
Good question for you Danshawen; Does a geometry exist that can describe the the behaviours of quantum fluctuations? The answer is easy and might as well be rhetorical but because of the answer its hinting at some thing not definite but very important. "What causes quantum fluctuations?" The answer should be easy here too, "evolution" must take the front stage. But what is evolving into all these beautiful forms of existences. Why does space-time evolve in the first place, why does it appear to be non deterministic? What is the common denominator?
I don't know if this makes any sense to you, but if it doesn't what else does? And if you can answer that question then you will understand the point I was trying to make. What is everything because it's a lot more than what can be perceived.
Other than the fact that such fluctuations, like any other particle creation, always occurs in pairs, that the pairs are likely entangled, travel at c before virtual ones dissipate, and that this only makes sense if there is a quantum field that is at rest with respect to all of them, no cogent explanation exists as to why this is the case, if I understand the meaning of your question correctly. So the geometry is simple and complete. That's all there is. NO absolute space, or really, space of any kind. Absolute and infinitely divisible time anchored only in the instant of the present, driven only by those mostly random quantum fluctuations. The illusion of space created by time and those vacuum fluctuations occurring in every direction in which energy may propagate. No frilling Pythagorean theorem applied to link space and time, because space does not exist. The pairs have only one other interpretation I can think of, and it is the foundation of relativity. There must always be two observers to make any sense out of any of it, just as it makes no sense to think of motion unless it is relative to something else. It is also true that it is harder to come up with explanations of physical phenomena (or a diagnosis of an illness) than it is to find a flaw with it. This will always be true. Anyone who has watched an episode of House knows that House will very likely fire you if you consistently do not have a good reason to back up your rejection of a candidate diagnosis that is written on his whiteboard. This reflect the simple fact that it is easier for us to grasp whether an idea about something is wrong (because this is a limited assessment) as opposed to whether it is the truth (because the truth usually involves an assessment that is much larger in scope). This will always be the case. Nature understands this much better than we sometimes do. It's key to why evolution works as well as it does.
I haven't mentioned a singularity because I know of no condition which would require one to begin the process. Why should there have been anything like a Big Bang when the quantum fluctuations we are discussing might actually be responsible for the expansion we are seeing? Particles are created in pairs, propagating in opposite directions. Even if they later interact with other matter or energy as they propagate, or even if they are subsumed into the aggregate mass of a black hole, the momentum forcing them apart in every direction they may propagate is conserved. Guth's superforce and inflation are actually more speculative than this idea, and besides, I have no real interest in cosmology at all. I'm more interested in how the universe operates today, and also why. Some folks (and Einstein was evidently among them) seem to think you cannot possibly understand anything about physics today unless you also understand how it worked 13.7 billion years ago. Neil Tyson is also one of these. Well, I'm not yet convinced that knowing the relative abundances of the first three lightest elements in the universe, or even matter vs. antimatter, as predicted by the Big Bang or inflation is good enough. There is an awful lot of actual antimatter in the form of quark-antiquark pairs in mesons holding the nuclei of just ordinary matter together. Account for that abundance. It could be explained by a steady state universe also. Explain to me the relative abundances of photons vs Higgs bosons, or just the vacuum expectation value of energy if you wish to impress. You can't even have atomic structure without Higgs. If the theory is incomplete (and it is), don't lie about what you think you may know. A discrepancy of 10^116 is not science, and this is the current size of the error bars for the vacuum expectation value. Or to put it another way, there's a fresh new term in your Lagrangian that theoretical physics simply dispensed with 50 years ago, so deal with it now.
I agree, the Big Bang is the observable consequences perceived by temporal observers inside time and space. It's just looking at it from the incomplete perspective. We cannot percieve beyond this perspective because I believe it will violate conservation of energy. I believe all these scenerios are just different ways of describing the same behaviours I can't say too much about this at this point it would be too much speculation but I have to do some calculations first of the amount of force necessary, and how it tranforms over time before I can state my final analysis. Yes the Big Bang is not necessary but the affect should still be readily explained by quantum fluctuations in the way I see it. I Believe the energy causing the expansion comes from quantum fluctuations but looking at it from a temporal perspective, and its the same as the superforce and is the same as gravity, but this is only speculation on my part. Gravity is poorly handled and transcends time and space so the measure of it inside time and space must be relative. If everything was relative there will be "nothing" for it to be relative to. That nothing "0" undefined something is the gravitational field in a different form. Existence is the evolution of the gravitational field. Everything is the gravitational field. Since my idea is incomplete I welcome honest constructive criticism pointing out any and all illogical thought structures. It will be greatly appreciated I want to know if I am making errors in my thought structure. Then I can reveal more information on why I believe what I believe in the most logical manner. This a work in progress.
Sciforums has a messaging system if you wish to go offline with the discussion, and I've done this with two other members on different subjects with a fair amount of success. It's best to keep speculation to a low simmer here. brucep is usually right about that, and is good to have around for that very reason. You should understand that further inquiry into particle physics these days is pretty much going to require the sophistication of machines like the LHC. You and I aren't going to get very far unless you have noticed something that has slipped by other folks. In that respect, the Higgs discovery was some low hanging fruit in physics. People seemed determined to ignore it. I'm just as determined, they will not. We landed on the moon. We discovered the Higgs. We decoded the human genome. Welcome to the 21st century.
Quantum fluctuations as I understand them are akin to the uncertainty principal...that is they happen by chance rather then something that can be determined. Therefor it would be hard to assign a cause...similar also to radioactivity. I believe you have answered your own questions. There was no time and space [as we know them] at that stage, so the question in a sense, does not make sense. The BB is not an explosion as one may think of an explosion. The BB was itself a quantum fluctuation among probably many other quantum fluctuations with different properties and laws of physics. Some may have evolved to again collapse before life evolved.....some may have expanded at such a rate, that the formation of matter was impossible. If course at this stage no one knows for certain as this epoch is beyond our current models and in the region of speculative physics. That's just the way it is. The common denominator being the probabilistic nature of the quantum foam itself.
This topic is worthy of my time when I can describe the evolution in better detail I will continue the discussion.
