Particles as excitation of a field

[Markus Hanke]

10 hours ago, Butch said:

So there you go, is it really such a strange concept that fermions, bosons and gravity share the same field? Is it such an outrageous concept that I should not waste more of my time investigating?

The concept that all of these are the result of the same underlying mechanism/field is not strange, and has been studied for the past several decades - the result being the five usual superstring theories, which are themselves the limits of M-Theory for different parameters. 

The trouble is just that, once you start to draw up the mathematics with a view on making it all internally self-consistent and externally fitting the empirical data, you very quickly realise that the devil is in the details; this unification of fermions, bosons, and gravity is a very complicated beast! In fact this is so complicated that it keeps pushing the very limits of our mathematical understanding and abilities.

I salute your enthusiasm and dedication...but at the same time I do have to tell you that potential wells, scalar fields, and simple quantum mechanics will not get you very far on this. 

[swansont]

11 hours ago, Butch said:

There is something improper about speculation?

We aren't currently in speculations and your conjecture falls short of what is required for speculations, so yes.

11 hours ago, Butch said:

The dimensions of such a well are yet to be determined, such measurement is not dependant on the "width" or "depth" of the well, but rather the units describing the well, such units bring the well into a relative framework... I was thinking about units relating hbar... So yes, barely a divot, but an important divot.

No. Not when the gravitational forces are ~10^39 times weaker than the electrostatic forces between an electron and a proton. It will not be important at all.

11 hours ago, Butch said:

Seems meaningless, maybe so... However a particle with mass has a gravitational well, I have only speculated thus far that fermions and bosons share a common field, with differing manifestations in that field(one as a well and one as a wave packet) your earlier post led me to consider composite bosons and it seems obvious that if that is the case then fermion particles sharing a common field would attract one another because of the lower amplitude of the field between them(should I be speaking tensors?) and of course bosons with mass would produce a well in a different manner. The interaction of the fermions(resulting from inertia and exclusion) would create an oscillating perturbation in the field(a wave). Now let us stretch things a bit(I am just beginning to consider this). The interactions just mentioned could in some way produce charge... Yeah, don't have much faith in that one, just going to put it on a back shelf for now...

So there you go, is it really such a strange concept that fermions, bosons and gravity share the same field? Is it such an outrageous concept that I should not waste more of my time investigating?

You don't have a model, so this is only so much hand-waving and word salad.

[Butch]

13 hours ago, Markus Hanke said:

The concept that all of these are the result of the same underlying mechanism/field is not strange, and has been studied for the past several decades - the result being the five usual superstring theories, which are themselves the limits of M-Theory for different parameters. 

The trouble is just that, once you start to draw up the mathematics with a view on making it all internally self-consistent and externally fitting the empirical data, you very quickly realise that the devil is in the details; this unification of fermions, bosons, and gravity is a very complicated beast! In fact this is so complicated that it keeps pushing the very limits of our mathematical understanding and abilities.

I salute your enthusiasm and dedication...but at the same time I do have to tell you that potential wells, scalar fields, and simple quantum mechanics will not get you very far on this. 

Sometimes getting lost in the woods is just a matter of looking in the wrong direction or making one wrong turn... I believe I have chosen a relatively simple path. It will require study of existing science on my part (The folks I have met here have been invaluable in that respect) familiarity with the standard model is number one on the list at present. This idea I have is not a recent thought, it goes back to 1983... QM has really been an eye opener for me.

I have done some study on string theory, it seems like some things I have done as a fisherman... When I need to invent a device, I tend to over complicate things, and in the end find a very much simpler solution.

Anyway thx for your post, I hope to hear more from you.

[Butch]

On 6/4/2018 at 6:00 AM, swansont said:

We aren't currently in speculations and your conjecture falls short of what is required for speculations, so yes.

No. Not when the gravitational forces are ~10^39 times weaker than the electrostatic forces between an electron and a proton. It will not be important at all.

You don't have a model, so this is only so much hand-waving and word salad.

A bit of progress on my model... Fermions have a spin of 1\2, so I am going to use that as my units. With these units, the fermion will reside at unity ("depth" = 1, "width" = 1)... I may be missing some terminology here, sorry for that. 

Can you see that two fermions in proximity would produce a "dip" in the field? That would be a gravity well. The permutations in the field to its extents then would be a map of gravitation.

[swansont]

8 minutes ago, Butch said:

A bit of progress on my model... Fermions have a spin of 1\2, so I am going to use that as my units. With these units, the fermion will reside at unity ("depth" = 1, "width" = 1)... I may be missing some terminology here, sorry for that. 

Spin is not a unit. Spin is angular momentum, and is in terms of " h bar", the reduced Planck's constant. The units are that of angular momentum.

A well is measured in terms of energy or sometimes potential.

8 minutes ago, Butch said:

Can you see that two fermions in proximity would produce a "dip" in the field? That would be a gravity well. The permutations in the field to its extents then would be a map of gravitation.

It would be a gravity well only if you are looking at the gravitational interaction between them. That is going to be dwarfed by any other interaction.

[Butch]

37 minutes ago, swansont said:

Spin is not a unit. Spin is angular momentum, and is in terms of " h bar", the reduced Planck's constant. The units are that of angular momentum.

A well is measured in terms of energy or sometimes potential.

It would be a gravity well only if you are looking at the gravitational interaction between them. That is going to be dwarfed by any other interaction.

1\2 h bar then... Yes, it is a measurement of energy.

Yes, I am only looking at the interaction between them!

How excellent, if you get it, I must be thinking correctly!

Now, if we add energy to a fermion and it relaxes back to 1\2 h bar and shakes the field in doing so, might that be the emission of a photon?

[swansont]

1 hour ago, Butch said:

1\2 h bar then... Yes, it is a measurement of energy.

No. The units are Joule-seconds. That's a unit of angular momentum.

1 hour ago, Butch said:

Yes, I am only looking at the interaction between them!

How excellent, if you get it, I must be thinking correctly!

Now, if we add energy to a fermion and it relaxes back to 1\2 h bar and shakes the field in doing so, might that be the emission of a photon?

Here's a calculation to do: pick your favorite fermions and see how close they have to be/move to get a visible photon from the energy difference of the gravitational interaction. 2 eV of energy.

[Butch]

49 minutes ago, swansont said:

No. The units are Joule-seconds. That's a unit of angular momentum.

Here's a calculation to do: pick your favorite fermions and see how close they have to be/move to get a visible photon from the energy difference of the gravitational interaction. 2 eV of energy.

You misunderstand, gravity and the photon emission are separate issues...

If the energy of the particle is increased, let us say by the absorption of a photon (keep in mind my photon is a wave packet in the same field as the particle) as the particle returns to an energy equal to its spin it "shakes" the field producing a photon.

[swansont]

12 minutes ago, Butch said:

You misunderstand, gravity and the photon emission are separate issues...

If the energy of the particle is increased, let us say by the absorption of a photon (keep in mind my photon is a wave packet in the same field as the particle) as the particle returns to an energy equal to its spin it "shakes" the field producing a photon.

And I'm asking you how much the fermions have to move in order to change their potential energy, to do this.

"an energy equal to its spin" is a nonsensical statement. As I have pointed out already, spin is not measured in energy.

A spin of an electron in a magnetic field would have an energy given by the dot product of the magnetic moment (which depends on spin) and the magnetic field. 

[Butch]

26 minutes ago, swansont said:

And I'm asking you how much the fermions have to move in order to change their potential energy, to do this.

"an energy equal to its spin" is a nonsensical statement. As I have pointed out already, spin is not measured in energy.

A spin of an electron in a magnetic field would have an energy given by the dot product of the magnetic moment (which depends on spin) and the magnetic field. 

The particle well would be distorted, the particle would have the same spin but the curve of 1\x^2 would be perturbed by the added energy... Best visual description I can give is a drop of water hitting a pond, the drop is absorbed and returned. Of course this is a classical example, a quantum example would be a perfect pond and drop.

I get what you are saying, spin is a closed system, 0 total energy... I am just having trouble communicating my thoughts, sorry I have been fishing all day in a tropical downpour.

23 minutes ago, Butch said:

A spin of an electron in a magnetic field would have an energy given by the dot product of the magnetic moment (which depends on spin) and the magnetic field. 

Yes, that is the direction I need to follow! Thank you!

[Butch]

2 hours ago, swansont said:

And I'm asking you how much the fermions have to move in order to change their potential energy, to do this.

"an energy equal to its spin" is a nonsensical statement. As I have pointed out already, spin is not measured in energy.

A spin of an electron in a magnetic field would have an energy given by the dot product of the magnetic moment (which depends on spin) and the magnetic field. 

The fermion does not move, the well that is the fermion is distorted. I believe this is described as a tensor?

Also I should mention that although the plotted curve is analogous to a gravity well, the fermion is a peak in field density. When energy is added to the particle the width at unity increases temporarily. Understand that the well is very tiny at unity, as far as we are able to measure it would be a single point.

I would endeavor to be more succinct in my description, however I need a fermion to begin working with. I do not believe the electron is the best choice, while it seems charge will creep in here someplace... I am not there yet. I think I should begin by modeling a quark.  Can you make a suggestion as to which? Also can you provide a reference for study of quark theory?

Edited June 6, 2018 by Butch

[Strange]

1 hour ago, Butch said:

I need a fermion to begin working with. I do not believe the electron is the best choice, while it seems charge will creep in here someplace... I am not there yet. I think I should begin by modeling a quark. 

Quarks are much more complicated than electrons; they not only have (electric) charge but also color charge. They are involved in electromagnetic, weak and strong interactions.

What I find bizarre is that you are picking some concepts from quantum theory (such as the concept of spin, the existence of class of particles call fermions and bosons) and then reject quantum theory in favour of some ideas of your own. You should be starting from the beginning and predicting the existence of fermions and bosons, instead of taking them as givens.

[Mordred]

Actually a quark is far more complex than an electron for the fermionic family to model. Due to its added degrees of freedom, not sure your ready for that just yet.

edit x posted with Strange who just listed some of the applicable degrees of freedom lol

Edited June 6, 2018 by Mordred

[Butch]

50 minutes ago, Strange said:

Quarks are much more complicated than electrons; they not only have (electric) charge but also color charge. They are involved in electromagnetic, weak and strong interactions.

What I find bizarre is that you are picking some concepts from quantum theory (such as the concept of spin, the existence of class of particles call fermions and bosons) and then reject quantum theory in favour of some ideas of your own. You should be starting from the beginning and predicting the existence of fermions and bosons, instead of taking them as givens.

Where is the beginning? I have been probing the members here with my various posts in order to determine that. If you would like to understand where I am going, review my "Einstein was right" post...

I did not get far with it, and rightly so.

All of this will culminate I believe in our connection with other universes...

I am not an academic, but my IQ is sufficient I think to handle what you might throw at me.

Please continue to lambaste me, it is greatly appreciated.

You all have taken me a long way, a very long way.

[Strange]

1 minute ago, Butch said:

Please continue to lambaste me, it is greatly appreciated.

Don’t tempt me! (But +1 for ... openness?)

[Butch]

1 hour ago, Strange said:

Quarks are much more complicated than electrons; they not only have (electric) charge but also color charge. They are involved in electromagnetic, weak and strong interactions.

What I find bizarre is that you are picking some concepts from quantum theory (such as the concept of spin, the existence of class of particles call fermions and bosons) and then reject quantum theory in favour of some ideas of your own. You should be starting from the beginning and predicting the existence of fermions and bosons, instead of taking them as givens.

You are correct, QM fits for me... I am finding that the standard model does not. I had until a short while ago, rejected QM, that was a mistake, and I blame the standard model. 

I realize now what I am trying to build is a model different from the standard model, string theory etc.

My, I have taken a big bite, haven't I?

I have a single particle which is a tensor peak in a field (Strange, is that correct terminology?), where do I go from here?

I believe the first place is to speculations! See you there soon!

 

 

 

 

 

[Mordred]

A tensor is strictly a mathematical construct, a means to organize scalar,vector and spinor relations. It has no peak. QM is part of the standard model but I suppose the terminology your looking for is classical physics as opposed to quantum physics

[studiot]

10 hours ago, Butch said:

The fermion does not move, the well that is the fermion is distorted. I believe this is described as a tensor?

 

7 hours ago, Mordred said:

A tensor is strictly a mathematical construct, a means to organize scalar,vector and spinor relations. It has no peak. QM is part of the standard model but I suppose the terminology your looking for is classical physics as opposed to quantum physics

 

As Mordred said ( + 1 ) a tensor is a mathematical construct designed to save a page or even several pages of writing and paper.

This is further complicated by the fact that there is more than one notation in use.

The very compactness of the notation tends to hide some of the properties /relationships so I caution care in deploying them.

 

Note swansont's questions demonstrate my own thoughts that as soon as you want to calculate/extract one of these you have to bust the tensor wide open.

The idea of an overall tensor peak is meaningless, but can be applied to one of the many properties/relations denoted by the tensor.

 

If you want to learn more about tensors, I suggest you start a new thread asking just that.

[swansont]

13 hours ago, Butch said:

The fermion does not move, the well that is the fermion is distorted. I believe this is described as a tensor?

I suppose a tensor could be used to describe it, if you had enough properties.

13 hours ago, Butch said:

Also I should mention that although the plotted curve is analogous to a gravity well,

Now it's analogous? That's a very different claim. What is the interaction?

13 hours ago, Butch said:

the fermion is a peak in field density. When energy is added to the particle the width at unity increases temporarily. Understand that the well is very tiny at unity, as far as we are able to measure it would be a single point.

I thought it was 1/x^2

13 hours ago, Butch said:

I would endeavor to be more succinct in my description, however I need a fermion to begin working with. I do not believe the electron is the best choice, while it seems charge will creep in here someplace... I am not there yet. I think I should begin by modeling a quark.  Can you make a suggestion as to which? Also can you provide a reference for study of quark theory?

Electrons and quarks are different kinds of particles. They are both spin 1/2, making them Fermions, but electrons are leptons, while quarks are the constituents of hadrons. Leptons do not interact via the strong force. Quarks do.

Fermion vs Boson is a classification based on the spin. They are not a classification based on the interactions they undergo. One reason why your approach of thinking of a Fermion field is unlikely to work.