Handy andy Posted June 14, 2017 Posted June 14, 2017 Pair production. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pair_production Sorry to bother you. Am I correct in thinking that electrons and positrons which are fermions (leptons) when they annihilate each other produce bosons (gamma rays). Am I correct in thinking both Bosons and Fermions have spin and inertia. Is it possible that both Bosons and fermions are made from the same undetectable substance, which makes up space (strings). If a fundamental particle had no spin it would be undetectable. If it could be made to spin in one way or another it would then be detectable and become a boson or fermion. If the undetectable substance was being influenced by the movement of all the other fermions and bosons spinning around it, it would in effect vibrate more in the proximity of fundamental particles than it would in empty space. The empty space would in effect be cooler ie vibrating less and would tend to move towards a fundamental particle and replace the vibrating substance of space around the particle. Is this the concept behind the theoretical graviton (spin 2)? Does the spin have to be actual spin or can it be vibration, due to space or other gravitons around it all at different energy levels. Strings are thought to be bundles of energy vibrating in complex ways in both the three physical dimensions of space as well as in compact directions—extra dimensions interwoven in the quantum foam (also known as spacetime foam). Is this the same concept space vibrating made up of strings that make up all things in the universe.
Strange Posted June 14, 2017 Posted June 14, 2017 Is it possible that both Bosons and fermions are made from the same undetectable substance, which makes up space (strings). There are various theories along these lines. The most famous being string theory. There are others (I will mention preons just because it is the work of the wonderfully named Sundance Osland Bilson-Thompson). However, as far as I know, none of these say that the distance between things is made of anything. It is just distance. If a fundamental particle had no spin it would be undetectable. Why do you say that? If the undetectable substance was being influenced by the movement of all the other fermions and bosons spinning around it, it would in effect vibrate more in the proximity of fundamental particles than it would in empty space. The empty space would in effect be cooler ie vibrating less and would tend to move towards a fundamental particle and replace the vibrating substance of space around the particle. Any evidence for that? Is this the concept behind the theoretical graviton (spin 2)? Why would something you have just made up be part of standard physics. Does the spin have to be actual spin or can it be vibration, due to space or other gravitons around it all at different energy levels. It is angular momentum. So not vibration.
swansont Posted June 14, 2017 Posted June 14, 2017 Sorry to bother you. ! Moderator Note FYI, "bothering" in this context is also known as "hijacking" and is against the rules. The thread originator asked a question, and you barged in to ask a question of your own that was on a tangential topic. This must stop.
Sensei Posted June 14, 2017 Posted June 14, 2017 (edited) FYI, "bothering" in this context is also known as "hijacking" and is against the rules. The thread originator asked a question, and you barged in to ask a question of your own that was on a tangential topic. This must stop. C'mon swansont. He was curious about scientific issue. If a fundamental particle had no spin it would be undetectable. "Particle having some spin" means "how they behave while flying close to external magnetic field", like in mass spectrometer. Pions, kaons, have all spin 0, and are all detectable. Charged particles leave trace in Cloud Chamber, Bubble Chamber, for instance. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloud_chamber https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bubble_chamber If particle is unstable, trace is ending, and two, three or rarely more, traces appear from that location where it decayed. Edited June 14, 2017 by Sensei
Handy andy Posted June 14, 2017 Author Posted June 14, 2017 ! Moderator Note FYI, "bothering" in this context is also known as "hijacking" and is against the rules. The thread originator asked a question, and you barged in to ask a question of your own that was on a tangential topic. This must stop. Apologies yet again. I had thought my question was related to the question energy turning into mass which was answered very nicely by Sensei. The link posted in the answer, was the same as one I was looking at previously when I asked a similar question. I had asked for some clarification, on some points ref electrons and positrons annihilating each other and turning into bosons.
swansont Posted June 14, 2017 Posted June 14, 2017 Apologies yet again. I had thought my question was related to the question energy turning into mass which was answered very nicely by Sensei. The link posted in the answer, was the same as one I was looking at previously when I asked a similar question. I had asked for some clarification, on some points ref electrons and positrons annihilating each other and turning into bosons. You did not ask about energy turning into mass, and you asked a whole bunch more that is not related to that topic.
Handy andy Posted June 14, 2017 Author Posted June 14, 2017 There are various theories along these lines. The most famous being string theory. There are others (I will mention preons just because it is the work of the wonderfully named Sundance Osland Bilson-Thompson). However, as far as I know, none of these say that the distance between things is made of anything. It is just distance. Why do you say that? Any evidence for that? Why would something you have just made up be part of standard physics. It is angular momentum. So not vibration. There is a series of questions no speculations, I am looking for answers not questions, and was thinking because you misled me ref gravity flowing towards mass and stated gravitons didn't exist on an earlier post, there is the strong possibility that gravity doesn't flow and something like a graviton might exist as stated by Mordred. The concept of spin when I read about it, is not necessarily actual spin in all cases. Anything moving has momentum, something vibrating like a string has momentum.
swansont Posted June 14, 2017 Posted June 14, 2017 C'mon swansont. He was curious about scientific issue. Yes, and I'm all for that. And the right way to go about inquiring is to open a new thread, rather than hijacking someone else's discussion. It's not hard to do, and not a difficult concept. It's one that I think most of us are exposed to while we grow up: don't interrupt someone else's conversation. And after you've been told several times that it's unacceptable, the excuses ring hollow. There is a series of questions no speculations I have to disagree on that, too. Both questions Strange asked were in response to claims, which are speculation on your part.
Handy andy Posted June 14, 2017 Author Posted June 14, 2017 "Particle having some spin" means "how they behave while flying close to external magnetic field", like in mass spectrometer. Pions, kaons, have all spin 0, and are all detectable. Charged particles leave trace in Cloud Chamber, Bubble Chamber, for instance. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloud_chamber https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bubble_chamber If particle is unstable, trace is ending, and two, three or rarely more, traces appear from that location where it decayed. collision.jpg Thank you for the helpful reply, I will read the links you have posted, and see what I have missed. I understand Pions and Kaons like Neutrinos are made up of quarks with opposite spin that cancels out, but still have a magnetic effect due to the spin of the quarks. What I was pondering ref the graviton could it simply vibrate amongst other gravitons, without having spin. I was wondering how gravitons might work, which is why I asked the question ref the graviton spin. I know they are only theoretical and have not been detected. When I read about spin it is not clear if it is momentum due to spin or vibration. The fact that gravitons haven't been detected doesn't detract from the fact that there is such a thing as gravity, and something causes it. I have read that gravity is transmitted by particles emitting and receiving of gravitons. I was picturing the spinning particles exciting the gravitons around it in space, and these gravitons being replaced by colder gravitons, which are in turn boiled off and replaced by more colder gravitons, a bit like gas around a very hot object. Yes, and I'm all for that. And the right way to go about inquiring is to open a new thread, rather than hijacking someone else's discussion. It's not hard to do, and not a difficult concept. It's one that I think most of us are exposed to while we grow up: don't interrupt someone else's conversation. And after you've been told several times that it's unacceptable, the excuses ring hollow. I have to disagree on that, too. Both questions Strange asked were in response to claims, which are speculation on your part. I had not wanted to start a new thread, and thought it was a simple question. How many warning points does one get before being banned.
imatfaal Posted June 14, 2017 Posted June 14, 2017 Thank you for the helpful reply, I will read the links you have posted, and see what I have missed. I understand Pions and Kaons like Neutrinos are made up of quarks with opposite spin that cancels out, but still have a magnetic effect due to the spin of the quarks... Neutrinos are fundamental and not made of quarks
Strange Posted June 14, 2017 Posted June 14, 2017 There is a series of questions no speculations, I am looking for answers not questions, and was thinking because you misled me ref gravity flowing towards mass and stated gravitons didn't exist on an earlier post I did warn you that "space flowing" was an analogy and that it maybe only applied in one specific case. Also, I would never have said gravitons don't exist. There is no evidence that they do and no evidence that they don't. The concept of spin when I read about it, is not necessarily actual spin in all cases. Indeed. It definitely should no be thought of as "rotation". It is just (intrinsic) angular momentum. I have read that gravity is transmitted by particles emitting and receiving of gravitons. This is a very misleading description (I don't blame you, it is a common pop-sci description). Gravitons (if they exist) mediate gravity as "virtual particles". "The best way to approach this concept, I believe, is to forget you ever saw the word “particle” in the term. A virtual particle is not a particle at all." https://profmattstrassler.com/articles-and-posts/particle-physics-basics/virtual-particles-what-are-they/
imatfaal Posted June 14, 2017 Posted June 14, 2017 ! Moderator Note Handy Andy For Heaven's sake - one topic per thread. Immediately after you had been asked to keep threads simple and on one theme you branch off into a whole new realm of speculation. DO NOT DO THIS AGAIN. If you want to ask about pair production then do so. This has little to do with strings. Which at your level of knowledge has no connexion to gravitons. Which in turn is only tangentially related to the notion of intrinsic angular momentum/spin. And that is only the first question. By your most recent post you are onto the heat / temperature of graviton gas! There is a lot of space for lots of threads - if you want to ask a question do so in a single thread with a straight-forward question if at all possible. If you wish to speculate then do so in the way prescribed in the guidelines - rambling threads with just a vague notion of an idea expressed in pop-science terms are not welcome. Ask as many honest questions as you want. But stop with the stream of consciousness - it is uneducational*, unwanted, and unedifying. Do not respond to this moderation within the thread *I know it is not a word but I like it 2
Handy andy Posted June 15, 2017 Author Posted June 15, 2017 Neutrinos are fundamental and not made of quarks Er yes sorry I was reading a lot and not paying enough attention. I was thinking of Helium Atoms from the following link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spin_%28physics%29 The Higgs boson also has zero spin, and is now thought to exist. Thanks for the correction. This is a very misleading description (I don't blame you, it is a common pop-sci description). Gravitons (if they exist) mediate gravity as "virtual particles". "The best way to approach this concept, I believe, is to forget you ever saw the word “particle” in the term. A virtual particle is not a particle at all." https://profmattstrassler.com/articles-and-posts/particle-physics-basics/virtual-particles-what-are-they/ Thank you for the reply, I initially started reading it, thinking I know all this, but then the link got very interesting. Do you have any opinions on the following. Would you state the gravitation field consisting of virtual particles exists all through out space? Could the movement of the gravitational field cause the gravitational effect. Do virtual gravitons have different energy levels and take up different volumes in space.?
Strange Posted June 15, 2017 Posted June 15, 2017 The gravitational field is everywhere and, therefore, so are the virtual particles (if the field is quantised). It is not the movement of the field that causes gravity (that sounds like it would be gravitational waves) but the "strength" (curvature). I don't know if gravitons could have different energy levels. But, like other fundamental particles they would have zero size.
imatfaal Posted June 15, 2017 Posted June 15, 2017 ! Moderator Note ok thread locked. read the modnotes. 1
Recommended Posts