Good Elf wrote: Current experiments suggests that neutrons are something other than "pure particle". Recent experiments at the Thomas Jefferson Labs suggest that the nucleus of stable atoms have a thin veneer of "neutron" coating them. Inside that thin veneer it is probably an excess of "protonic" material.
That's interesting. How does that help explain the fact that neutrons decay into protons and electrons and the reverse?
A lot!... you can speculate all day long but the guys at Jefferson are still several experiments away from resolving a stable theory.
Inertron wrote:Considering that we know that light frequencies are the result of the oscillation frequencies of the electrons that emit them, doesn't it make sense that all particles would have resonation frequencies that correspond to some wavelength of light? I guess this is the idea that string theories are based on but since I haven't read much about string theories, idk.
Not strings... the scale is all wrong. Another point is the events that form particles do not occur in the wavelength that is the result of freely propagating light. In quasi-plasmas (as in matter) the wavelength of phenomena relates to quasi-particles which are "interactions" of light and charged matter (whatever that means). I point to the anomalous behavior of surface plasmon polaritons which shrink the wavelength of the light down and change the way light interacts. These phenomena are at different scales to what might be expected.
Good Elf wrote:The Lab says that if all their recent discoveries are true and confirmed then this will considerably "trash" current particle theory and something new must certainly emerge.... I "assume" something other than the Standard Model.
While it does seem logical that nothing is ultimately fixed in terms of being modelable in terms of solid matter, such as marbles, I don't think that means that everything known is wrong. That's throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
Currently our theories are couched into that "marble" mold of "solid internally stationary particles. Nobody's said anything about throwing out babies with bathwater but the difference is treating "particles" like the "baby" or should we treating it like the "bathwater"... perhaps heading off down the drain? This current state of affairs is somewhat like Dalton's Theory of Atoms at the end of the 19th Century. And like Dalton's Theory we are still probably about that far off from a decent theory of the internal structure of the nucleus of atoms.
Inertron wrote:Besides, what is really so questionable except maybe the imagery that's been assigned for visualizing the constituent phenomena? The forces and their phenomenal interactions are still all viable models for observed data, no?
You tell me what we really know about relativistic turbidity theory of quantized superfluids? It's a much bigger "ballgame" than describing the motion of elastic billiard balls trapped inside a "spherical bag".
Einstein's prediction of light bending around the sun during an eclipse made for a very nice observable astronomical experiment but when you're dealing with the internal dynamics of extreme gravity interacting with nuclear force, how can you ever expect to observe it directly? At best, I think you could come up with possible observable consequences of theoretical scenarios and search for those, asking critical questions that whose answers would support or undermine your hypotheses. Is that what you mean by experimentation?
Sorry but you are not quite on track here. Need to read the section (Chap 9) on the King-Perkins-Chudakov (KPC) Effect or simply the Chudakov Effect. Recent experiment along these lines are already being published in PRL but look here for a short summary (too short) Going the Distance - Direct Measurement of the Formation Length of Photons - 16/Feb/2012 Physics
. Unfortunately I cannot directly download the paper or a preprint of the one referred to. This seems to be a summary of the experiment for this year... Status and plans for 2012, CERN NA63 - U.I. Uggerhøj et al
That seems to be the better reference and contains a log of U.I. Uggerhøj's data. I am very sorry about that first reference... too much information.
Inertron wrote:I would be happy to see a whole thread devoted to these various situations where matter/antimatter are thought to form and how that occurs, exactly. It's very hard for me to imagine how magnetic fields could result in particle-formation.
I guess under these extreme quasi-plasma conditions even some aspects of electromagnetic theory look like something else entirely. It is too much to expect that the explanation of phenomena would stay so simple as it did for so long. To get to the "next level" it is essential to understand that Bohr's version of QED is not correct when he made the suggestion that physicists should not worry themselves about the inner mechanisms of the nucleus and we can deal with everything as pure statistics. In truth we can know a lot more about the Physics and we are just beginning to get the tools to determine what these additional features are.
Inertron wrote:I don't understand how these processes work, much less how they work without gravitational compression of large amounts of matter. To me, it seems like there are two extreme poles on the spectrum of force and energy, 1) the extreme compression of matter by centripetal acceleration and turbulence and 2) extreme speed within vacuum space. Particle accelerators do the latter, right, so how does that simulate the former? Are they analogous in a force sense somehow, the way G-force of acceleration in a moving vehicle is analogous to gravity?
I do not think present day science knows swat about gravity. Gravity is the weakest force of all. Electromagnetism is 1040
times stronger. All the other forces of nature are related to electromagnetism acting within their different realms of scale... it's seems plausible to me that Gravity is some phenomenon related to this overall electromagnetism acting in the context of the interface between matter and energy.
Inertron wrote:Well there does seem to be something very universal about vortexes, doesn't there?.....[..]......If you think about it, even the seeming solidity of the rocky planets is only due to their having cooled to the point of their gravity becoming insufficient to fully mobilize their constituent particles. Stir them up enough and they would probably become toruses as well, no?
Since matter can completely annihilate anti-matter producing just light as a product. It is clear that there is a process that may disintegrate "matter" into pure light. The cores of fundamental particles are like tiny tornadoes of bundled energy tied into a knot... in the case of a proton and neutron it is a trefoil knot
. In the case of some mesons it is clearly two component knots (two quarks). In the case of the electron (just one entity... itself) it is a simpler knot or even an "unknot" if you call it the way the mathematicians would like it to be called. But just because these look like strings... they are not the strings of String Theory... these phenomena manifest inside of particles and even manifest with pure light or in plasmas which undergo internal Anderson Reconnections of the virtual photon fields. It is understood at one level of Quantum Electrodynamics and at another as Quantum Chromodynamics and there are other situations where matter and photons mix electro-dynamically in more complex phenomena.
All these are mathematical knots but as we know with the electron the actual "material" the knot is formed from can also be twisted even further and this causes it to behave in a way that appears anomalous to the way humans think. I am thinking about "Balinese Candle Dancing" or sometimes known as "Dirac's Party Trick". One loop with that twist and everything is in a twist while two loops in the same sense untwists the original loop. This is all about the more complex topology of light. This makes the electron have that "strange symmetry" that you need to rotate it completely twice to return it to it's original position... like the candle in Balinese Candle Dancing.Balinese cup trick / candle trick / spinor demonstration
It is a symmetry that the fundamental particles will also have in a different form. It is easy to tie even single photons of light into knots using various forms of Optical Bessel Beams. The trick is to make this knot non-dissipative as a static quantum. This theory is not entirely there yet.
Inertron wrote:What would you expect to happen exactly if everyone just sat back and waited?
"Everyone" is not simply sitting back and waiting for something to happen. Only the "lucky ones" are allowed to "play" while the rest of us must wait and watch. I would not discourage any but it is currently a very big task and you need to be able to do all these experiments to test the theories.