Particles as excitation of a field

[Strange]

21 minutes ago, geordief said:

Am I going (further) off topic to wonder whether   quantum fluctuations are embedded in the various fundamental  fields or ,as it were separate to them?

The fluctuations are a consequence of the uncertainty principle which, in turn, is a consequence of the fact that particles are described by the wave function. I don't think there is a way of explaining why, without getting into some fairly complex maths!

 

[geordief]

19 minutes ago, Strange said:

The fluctuations are a consequence of the uncertainty principle which, in turn, is a consequence of the fact that particles are described by the wave function. I don't think there is a way of explaining why, without getting into some fairly complex maths!

 

Is it just my approximate level of understanding or do these fluctuations bear any (extremely  loose analogical) comparison with the "god of the gaps" notion?

 

Do they sort of appear because the overall framework is stretched and ,like a night sky these fluctuations peep through like stars (again just an analogy)

 

These fluctuations do have consequences,don't they ?

[Strange]

6 minutes ago, geordief said:

Is it just my approximate level of understanding or do these fluctuations bear any (extremely  loose analogical) comparison with the "god of the gaps" notion?

I don't think so. They are an inevitable consequence of the quantisation of fields described by wave-functions. 

7 minutes ago, geordief said:

These fluctuations do have consequences,don't they ?

Almost certainly. Although I'm not sure what! 

It is possible that the non-zero vacuum energy is the cause of dark energy, but it is much too large so that is a problem.

It may also be related to the vacuum permeability and permittivity but I don't know if/how that would be.

[swansont]

1 hour ago, geordief said:

Am I going (further) off topic to wonder whether   quantum fluctuations are embedded in the various fundamental  fields or ,as it were separate to them?

Quantum fluctuations appear prominently in QED (though I can't say that's where they first were used). All of the various loops you see in Feynman diagrams are fluctuations.  

 

That's an electron-electron scatter, with the squiggly line being the virtual photon, and the loop is a virtual e-e+ pair. And this can get more complicated, with more loops, but generally speaking, the more complicated the diagrams are, the rarer the process is.

[StringJunky]

2 hours ago, swansont said:

Quantum fluctuations appear prominently in QED (though I can't say that's where they first were used). All of the various loops you see in Feynman diagrams are fluctuations.  

 

That's an electron-electron scatter, with the squiggly line being the virtual photon, and the loop is a virtual e-e+ pair. And this can get more complicated, with more loops, but generally speaking, the more complicated the diagrams are, the rarer the process is.

This suggests they were introduced by Heisenberg:

Quote

The energy fluctuation in vacuum can be explained by the uncertainty principle of quantum physics. The principle, first introduced by German physicist Werner Heisenberg, states that at any definite point in space, there must exist temporary changes in energy over time. Sometimes this energy is converted into mass, generating particle-antiparticle pairs.

https://www.insidescience.org/news/study-about-nothing

They were experimentally observed by Willis Lamb -  Lamb Shift - in 1947.

Quote

The Lamb shift is an energy shift of the energy levels of the hydrogen atom caused by the coupling of the atom’s electron to fluctuations in the vacuum.

https://physics.aps.org/articles/v9/139

 

Edited May 2, 2018 by StringJunky

[swansont]

28 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

This suggests they were introduced by Heisenberg:

I don't think so. That states that the HUP is required, not that Heisenberg specifically predicted them. And the HUP was introduced several years before the positron was discovered.

28 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

They were experimentally observed by Willis Lamb -  Lamb Shift - in 1947.

Bethe explained it, also in 1947, but with mass renormalization. I'm not sure when the quantum fluctuations explanation came about.

[StringJunky]

13 minutes ago, swansont said:

I don't think so. That states that the HUP is required, not that Heisenberg specifically predicted them. And the HUP was introduced several years before the positron was discovered.

Bethe explained it, also in 1947, but with mass renormalization. I'm not sure when the quantum fluctuations explanation came about.

Right. I thought they fell out of the HUP., from the way I read it.

[Butch]

On 5/1/2018 at 7:14 PM, swansont said:

If c were infinite, then the interactions could be instantaneous. It would be impossible to move faster than c.

What would it decay into?

It does not decay,  however(feel free to educate me on this) it can give up all of its energy and cease to exist. 

I am very pleased to see this discussion is on going! I haven't a lot to show as a model,  yet... However I do keep up with the discussion and continue to learn. 

I will mention one thought I have had. 

What think you of the idea that fermions and bosons share the same field,  fermions being perturbations(not oscillatory) while bosons are wave packets as described previously in this topic. 

On 5/1/2018 at 5:28 PM, Strange said:

In your frame of reference, their speed difference is 1.2c. (But that is OK; nothing is moving at more than c in your frame of reference.)

They each see the other receding at 0.88c.

My thinking is that the quasar they see would be in a much earlier time frame where indeed it's velocity would not be greater than c.

Does special relativity dictate that nothing can travel faster than c,  or does it rather dictate that nothing can accelerate to greater than c... That is to say it cannot be witnessed from a reference where it is traveling greater than c? 

[Strange]

2 hours ago, Butch said:

Does special relativity dictate that nothing can travel faster than c,  or does it rather dictate that nothing can accelerate to greater than c... That is to say it cannot be witnessed from a reference where it is traveling greater than c? 

It says that nothing can move faster than c. And nothing with mass can move at c.

But that only applies locally. If you are talking about quasars then you probably need to take expansion into account and use GR. In which case things can move apart at more than c. We can see galaxies that are receding at more than the speed light.

Edited May 7, 2018 by Strange

[swansont]

2 hours ago, Butch said:

It does not decay,  however(feel free to educate me on this) it can give up all of its energy and cease to exist. 

You were asking if it was stable. There's your answer: yes. It does not decay.

That photons can interact is a separate issue. Those involve other particles, meaning they are not spontaneous.

2 hours ago, Butch said:

What think you of the idea that fermions and bosons share the same field,  fermions being perturbations(not oscillatory) while bosons are wave packets as described previously in this topic. 

What do you have to support this idea?

16 minutes ago, Strange said:

It says that nothing can move faster than c. And nothing with mass can move at c.

Unless there is such a thing as imaginary mass or energy

[Butch]

1 hour ago, swansont said:

What do you have to support this idea?

Time I suppose to introduce some of my model,  I always tend to learn a great deal from members, even about my own ideas. 

I will do this in steps, and wait for discussion before moving on. 

As I have previously stated I am thinking of fermions as perturbations that affect space(lets keep it simple for now and address time at a later date) the particle is a point source for this perturbation, a singularity of sorts. The effect of this singularity diminishes by the inverse square... 

1 hour ago, Strange said:

It says that nothing can move faster than c. And nothing with mass can move at c.

But that only applies locally. If you are talking about quasars then you probably need to take expansion into account and use GR. In which case things can move apart at more than c. We can see galaxies that are receding at more than the speed light.

Wouldn't galaxies receding at more than c predate the Big Bang? The galaxy we see would be moving at a much, much greater velocity now than it is in the time frame that we observe it. 

Edited May 7, 2018 by Butch

[Butch]

On 5/1/2018 at 6:18 PM, StringJunky said:

Is 13+ billion years long enough?

I misused the term stable, Swansont straightened me out.

[Strange]

1 hour ago, Butch said:

Wouldn't galaxies receding at more than c predate the Big Bang?

No. Recessional speed is proportional to distance (because expansion is a scaling effect). That means that if you go far enough you can find objects moving apart at 2x, 3x, 10x .... the speed of light. (Anything more than about 3x the speed of light will be outside the observable universe.)

Quote

The galaxy we see would be moving at a much, much greater velocity now than it is in the time frame that we observe it. 

Yes. The most distant galaxies were only about 4 billion light years away when the light we see was emitted. It has taken about 13 billon years to get here because it is "swimming upstream" against expanding space. Those galaxies are now about 45 billion light years away and moving proportionally faster. (Those numbers are from memory so may not be quite right, but they in the right ballpark...)

[Butch]

On 5/2/2018 at 7:58 AM, geordief said:

Am I going (further) off topic to wonder whether   quantum fluctuations are embedded in the various fundamental  fields or ,as it were separate to them?

I would say you are getting back on topic. 

[Butch]

On 5/7/2018 at 6:27 PM, Strange said:

No. Recessional speed is proportional to distance (because expansion is a scaling effect). That means that if you go far enough you can find objects moving apart at 2x, 3x, 10x .... the speed of light. (Anything more than about 3x the speed of light will be outside the observable universe.)

Yes. The most distant galaxies were only about 4 billion light years away when the light we see was emitted. It has taken about 13 billon years to get here because it is "swimming upstream" against expanding space. Those galaxies are now about 45 billion light years away and moving proportionally faster. (Those numbers are from memory so may not be quite right, but they in the right ballpark...)

Hey,  Strange

Just dropping a note to correct some of my terminology... 

My idea is that a Fermion is embedded while a Boson is a perturbation, however they share a common field. 

I am making good progress on a model, however I  may need some assistance converting some of the abstract to math. 

[Mordred]

5 minutes ago, Butch said:

 

My idea is that a Fermion is embedded while a Boson is a perturbation, however they share a common field. 

I am making good progress on a model, however I  may need some assistance converting some of the abstract to math. 

Further terminology correction is needed as the above makes no sense. Embedded and perturbation are not the distinguishing features between a fermion and a Boson. A boson is symmetric with integer spin while a fermion is antisymmetric with fractional spin values.

[Strange]

12 minutes ago, Butch said:

My idea is that a Fermion is embedded while a Boson is a perturbation, however they share a common field. 

And, to add to what Mordred said, they cannot share a common field. Each type of particle is a quantum of the corresponding field. 

[Mordred]

The symmetric/ antisymmetric relation is important take a system of identical particles but have the requirement that all particles are indistinguishable from one another. This means that changing any two particles within this system will not affect the probability density

[latex] |\psi|^2 [/latex]  Dirac notation.

symmetric case [latex]\psi(r^1,r^2)=\psi(r^1,r^2)[/latex]

antisymmetric case [latex]\psi(r^1,r^2)=-\psi(r^1,r^2)[/latex] where [latex]|\psi(r^1,r^2)| [/latex] is the two particle probability density function.

This can be studied in greater detail by studying gauge groups under Pauli exclusion principle.

edit repaired two mistakes miss implied the operator and repaired one latex

 

Edited May 29, 2018 by Mordred

[Butch]

20 minutes ago, Mordred said:

Further terminology correction is needed as the above makes no sense. Embedded and perturbation are not the distinguishing features between a fermion and a Boson. A boson is symmetric with integer spin while a fermion is antisymmetric with fractional spin values.

When I have a decent model I will present it in speculations.

Thx for the info, I had just been considering spin in my model!

 

6 minutes ago, Mordred said:

The symmetric/ antisymmetric relation is important take a system of identical particles but have the requirement that all particles are indistinguishable from one another. This means that changing any two particles within this system will not affect the probability density

[latex| |\psi|^2 [/latex] (inner product notation) Dirac notation.

symmetric case ψ(r1,r2)=ψ(r1,r2)

antisymmetric case ψ(r1,r2)=−ψ(r1,r2) where |ψ(r1,r2)| is the two particle probability density function.

This can be studied in greater detail by studying gauge groups under Pauli exclusion principle.

 

I will be getting there in detail soon, I am familiar with Pauli, but certainly I will need to explore in greater depth.

Edited May 28, 2018 by Butch

[Mordred]

When studying Pauli exclusion at particular attention to fermions with [latex] \hbar=\frac{h}{2\pi}[/latex] this has importance with the above probability density distributions and the fermionic half integer spins. It will also provide vital clues as to the subtle differences between boson and fermionic gauge groups. I would also suggest studying Pauli in terms of hydrogen atom spin orbitals for starters....

Edited May 29, 2018 by Mordred

[Butch]

16 hours ago, Mordred said:

When studying Pauli exclusion at particular attention to fermions with ℏ=h2π this has importance with the above probability density distributions and the fermionic half integer spins. It will also provide vital clues as to the subtle differences between boson and fermionic gauge groups. I would also suggest studying Pauli in terms of hydrogen atom spin orbitals for starters....

Hydrogen, not a starting point... I am dealing with unbound particles at present. You have been very helpful! 

The basis of my model regarding Fermions is that they are embedments, this can be functionally plotted as 1/x^2... The units I have decided to try are integer spin... Unity would then be a particle with a spin of 1, however you have stated that Fermions have a spin of 1\2 and Bosons have a spin of 1... In my model Bosons would be a wave perturbation of the field while fermions would be embedments in the field perhaps then 1\2 hbar should be my base unit for plotting?

I stand corrected... You stated "fractional" spin values... Are there spin values other than 1\2 for Fermions?

Edited May 29, 2018 by Butch

[Strange]

45 minutes ago, Butch said:

The basis of my model regarding Fermions is that they are embedments, this can be functionally plotted as 1/x^2...

What is an "embedment"?

And what are you plotting against 1/x²? In other words, what is x? I am guessing it is distance. So what is the y coordinate?

47 minutes ago, Butch said:

Are there spin values other than 1\2 for Fermions?

There is a handy summary of spin and other properties here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elementary_particle#/media/File:Standard_Model_of_Elementary_Particles.svg

 

[Butch]

1 hour ago, Strange said:

What is an "embedment"?

And what are you plotting against 1/x²? In other words, what is x? I am guessing it is distance. So what is the y coordinate?

There is a handy summary of spin and other properties here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elementary_particle#/media/File:Standard_Model_of_Elementary_Particles.svg

 

A gravity well is an xample of an embeddment,

If you want to correct my terminology, I would be grateful.

The embeddment I am considering for a Fermion would be an infinite well.

I am thinking units for y should be particle spin (The depth of the well), x would be distance.

With a spin of 1, the particle would reside at unity.

Edited May 29, 2018 by Butch

[Strange]

25 minutes ago, Butch said:

A gravity well is an xample of an embeddment,

If you want to correct my terminology, I would be grateful.

I don't really know what that means. Except you are describing the particle in terms of geometry? 

25 minutes ago, Butch said:

I am thinking units for y should be particle spin (The depth of the well), x would be distance

So spin is depends on how far away you are?

That seems to contradict all the evidence we have about the behaviour of particles.

26 minutes ago, Butch said:

With a spin of 1, the particle would reside at unity.

What does "reside at unity" mean?

[Butch]

30 minutes ago, Strange said:

I don't really know what that means. Except you are describing the particle in terms of geometry? 

Yes, most simply a hyperbolic curve representing the distortion of the field by the existence of the particle... this could be a gravitational effect.

Only Fermions would have this property, Bosons would be wave packet perturbations of the field.