How Do Simple Particles (quarks, leptons, etc.) Accelerate?

[metacogitans]

How do the simplest constituent particles of matter (quarks and leptons) accelerate?

Basically where I'm stuck right now is, all the fundamental forces including gravity seem to fit together coherently if I can assume that particles are always accelerating.

The problem with that is that particles would have to be affected by multiple waves at once, and every wave affecting the particle would be a high number (somewhere between 10^80 and !(10^80) or something) simultaneously, every instant, which:
- is too demanding mathematically to work with in most applications, perhaps not though
- doesn't fit with the idea of there being discrete wave packets of inertia (photons) which wouldn't provide continuous acceleration

The alternative would seem to be that particles are accelerated by point surface contact with one wave at a time; are waves of force present at every point in space, or are there gaps/emptiness in-between?

This is what I'm trying to make work:

What causes particles to have an electric charge, and what causes opposite charges to exhibit attraction?

Simply put, the clockwise or counterclockwise orientation of a particle's path through space determines the charge of a particle.

Since particles are not only always in motion, but accelerating, and the sources of acceleration are themselves particles moving in a unique direction and also accelerating, the direction which a particle is accelerating in must always be changing, and therefore a particle's path is always curving.

Since the field of a particle will propagate out over an infinite distance (with diminishing intensity), and a particle produces a field whenever it is accelerated by a force, with the reflecting waves of force acting as the field, a particle must be producing a field constantly if the particle is always accelerating.

As a particle's path is always curving, the overall progression of the curvature is preserved due to inertia, and can not change abruptly -- the geometrical implication of this is that the particle's trajectory will maintain a clockwise or counterclockwise orientation in its curvature - and the field produced by the particle will also propagate with a distinct clockwise/counterclockwise orientation.

When plotted out, the trajectory of the particle and the field it produces would seem to take on a 'coiling' shape; viewing the clockwise or counterclockwise orientation of this coiling as being a positive or negative electric charge, attraction between opposites can be explained geometrically, similar to how gears spinning in opposite directions mesh together, while gears spinning in the same direction kick off each other and aren't mechanically compatible.

Explaining Gravity as a Result of Electromagnetism
Traditionally, space is thought of as an empty vacuum; however, quite the opposite is true, and space consists of a vast particle medium.
As our sun travels through space, it displaces matter in the interstellar medium, producing low pressure in its wake - as well as producing a repulsive effect on matter in front of its path.
The combination of these two effects is responsible for the gravitation of planets and other objects with the sun.

Edited November 16, 2016 by metacogitans

[Mordred]

Wouldn't a more practical question be "What slows down a particle"?

 

Ie mass=resistance to inertia. What interaction gives the gluons mass?

 

As far as your model idea goes Not enough detail to judge atm

Edited November 17, 2016 by Mordred

[metacogitans]

Wouldn't a more practical question be "What slows down a particle"?

 

Ie mass=resistance to inertia. What interaction gives the gluons mass?

 

As far as your model idea goes Not enough detail to judge atm

Well, I was thinking of that same question earlier; Particles held together by an electron bond would inadvertently share inertia to some extent with the particles they are bound to. Another thought I had was that if mass is defined as a number of particles (and not in terms of energy or electron volts), density must play more of a role in resistance to inertia than mass or mass-energy.

 

As for gluons, for a while it has seemed to me that the binding of quarks forming a hadron has to be a mathematical and geometrical consequence of particles set within such close proximity to one other (basically, I think they are too close to be separated by everyday interactions, and a particle accelerator has to knock them loose).

It also seemed to me that the phenomenon of beta-decay supported a model/theory of charge being a geometrical phenomenon, as it involves charge switching after another charged particle comes within proximity of the quarks, changing not only the charge of one of the quarks, but its orientation, as though charge is simply geometrical and can be switched by another particle being forced within proximity of the quarks.

 

But it's all really beyond my knowledge; those are just thoughts/ideas.

[Mordred]

Well the best way to learn the required details is to study how symmetry breaking occurs due to temperature.

 

There is a key term to understand

 

"thermal equilibrium " it is specifically when particles become indistinguishable including via momentum.

 

For example before electroweak symmetry breaking and the Higgs field decoupling the particles you mentioned are fully relativistic and indistinguishable from photons.

 

So the better question is when do particles slow down due to coupling and gain mass.