Is it possible to split an indivisible particle?
- Thread starter Olga
- Start date
Pinball1970
Valued Senior Member
It may not be, however probing atoms at higher and higher energies involves larger an larger colliders, which will yield diminishing returns. No new fundamental particles were found after the Higgs and nothing was found to challenge the Standard Model. Some scientists say building a bigger version will be a waste of money.
So, current theory says we do not need to look and if we did we would have to spend a huge amount of money that could be spent elsewhere.
TheVat
Valued Senior Member
Olga, quantum field theory doesn't really see particles as actual particles, that's just a term that's inherited from classical physics. The elementary particles are understood as excitations of their respective quantum fields, rather than fundamental, indivisible objects. Each type of elementary particle corresponds to a unique quantum field, and the particle itself is a localized perturbation or ripple within that field. It might participate in some kind of transformation, but that's not at all the same thing as splitting in two.
Теват, разве не частицы являются источниками полей?
И что такое "возбуждение полей"? Чем это "возбуждение" вызвано?
It is impossible because your assumption was that the particle is indivisible.
By definition, an indivisible thing is a thing that can't be divided.
Last edited:
А почему её нельзя разделить, Джеймс?
Olga:
In some circumstances, particles can cause excitations in other fields. For example, if you accelerate an electron, it causes excitations in the electromagnetic field and thus causes photon emission.
In a dark room, where there is no light, the electromagnetic field still exists, but the values of the electric and magnetic parts of the field in the room are zero everywhere. When you turn on the light, photons start propagating in the room, and wherever the photons are the electric and magnetic field values are no longer zero.
In the quantum vacuum, there are also excitations that are completely random, all the time. For example, an electron-positron pair can be excited out of the vacuum for a short time, before the pair annihilates again and the field returns to its "zero" level once more.
No. In quantum field theory, the fields are everywhere, all the time.
In some circumstances, particles can cause excitations in other fields. For example, if you accelerate an electron, it causes excitations in the electromagnetic field and thus causes photon emission.
All fields have a "base" level, which you can think of as a state where the "value" of the field is zero.
In a dark room, where there is no light, the electromagnetic field still exists, but the values of the electric and magnetic parts of the field in the room are zero everywhere. When you turn on the light, photons start propagating in the room, and wherever the photons are the electric and magnetic field values are no longer zero.
There can be many reasons. For example, turning on the light in a room excites the electromagnetic field in the room. That happens because electrons were accelerated and caused light to be emitted.
In the quantum vacuum, there are also excitations that are completely random, all the time. For example, an electron-positron pair can be excited out of the vacuum for a short time, before the pair annihilates again and the field returns to its "zero" level once more.
Я это всё знаю, Джеймс. Вы мне объясните другое: если поля бесконечны и однородны, ни из чего не состоят, тогда чем возбуждённое поле отличается от невозбуждённого? Что именно в нём возбуждается?
Then why did you ask those questions?Olga said:
I already told you. For example, when the electric field is excited at some point in space, it has a vector value that is non-zero at that point. When it is not excited, then its vector value is zero.
I thought you said you knew all this.
"Excited" means that it is not in its ground state.
It's the same with atoms. Consider a hydrogen atom, for instance. Usually, the electron sits in the lowest available energy level of the atom. But if it absorbs a photon of the right energy, it can go to a higher energy level. When it is in the higher level, we say it is "excited".
Didn't they teach you this in your physics classes, Olga?
Если я задаю вопрос, это не всегда означает, что я не знаю ответ. Иногда, это означает, что я прошу вас задуматься о чём то.
Джеймс, тогда скажите, можно ли разделить поле?
Tell me what sort of dividing you have in mind.
I already told you. An indivisible thing can't be divided, by definition. That's what "indivisible" means.
Don't they have dictionaries in Russia?
Смотрите: чтобы получить относительность, нам нужно, чтобы объект как то отличался от себя самого. Как это сделать без разделения?
Тогда другой вопрос: в природе существует ли что нибудь неделимое?
When you say "relativity", are you referring to the physics theory of relativity?
How can a thing be different from itself? And what does that have to do with relativity?
Я сейчас не о теории относительности говорю, а об относительности вообще.
Вещь не отличается от самой себя, а поле от самого себя отличается, хотя оно не из чего не состоит? Каким образом?
Who told you that a field is different from itself, Olga?
It's strange that you say that fields don't consist of anything, also. For example, the electron field is the field in which all electrons exist. It would be fair to say, then, that the electron field consists of electrons, at least in part. Most of the electron field, of course, is less interesting than the places in it where electrons are found, because most of the electron field is not in an excited state.
Как это - "кто мне сказал"? Вы сами и сказали мне только что. Разве вы не сказали, что возбуждённое поле отличается от невозбуждённого?
Значит, поле всё же из чего то состоит? Из чего?
Yes. A field is a thing that can have a range of values at each point in space, by definition. Moreover, those values can change at different times.
I thought you said you know what a field is, Olga. Why do I find myself explaining the basics to you, constantly?
Can't we talk about something more interesting?
I answered that question in post #18.
Do you have a problem with fields, Olga?
Why don't you tell me what your problem is, rather than asking all these questions?