Particles as excitation of a field

[Strange]

4 minutes ago, Butch said:

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

Yes, gravity is a geometric effect. I don't know where spin comes into it.

5 minutes ago, Butch said:

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

Why?

Bosons can have mass and charge and spin. So why don't they create this gravitational well?

And what about composite bosons, made from fermions? Does this effect disappear when they are combined?

[Butch]

10 minutes ago, Strange said:

Yes, gravity is a geometric effect. I don't know where spin comes into it.

Why?

Bosons can have mass and charge and spin. So why don't they create this gravitational well?

And what about composite bosons, made from fermions? Does this effect disappear when they are combined?

Good question! Let me investigate, learn and see if I have an answer!

Photons do have this effect, but differently! A wave packet in the field would certainly have an effect, however not nearly as greatly as the Fermion.

My abstract vision of this is that a photon wave packet traveling through this field could be swallowed up by an electron, the electrons spin would increase momentarily and a photon would be emitted as it fell back, and the result would be a wave packet traveling through the field.

All of the Fermion particles and there position would define the "shape" of the field. Bosons would be oscillating perturbations of the field.

If a group of Fermions were in close proximity the combined energy of their spin would create a deeper local well.

Edited May 29, 2018 by Butch

[Strange]

9 minutes ago, Butch said:

If a group of Fermions were in close proximity the combined energy of their spin would create a deeper local well.

But if there are two of them, it would be a boson which, according to you, would not produce such a well.

This seems a little ... inconsistent.

[Butch]

14 minutes ago, Strange said:

But if there are two of them, it would be a boson which, according to you, would not produce such a well.

This seems a little ... inconsistent.

I will have to model each beginning with elementary Fermions... and building the others. At least spin math is pretty simple!

Thank you Strange.

[swansont]

3 hours ago, Butch said:

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

That implies a bound state, and infinite energy to free the particle. So it's unphysical.

1 hour ago, Butch said:

 If a group of Fermions were in close proximity the combined energy of their spin would create a deeper local well.

I thought it was infinite already. How does it get deeper?

[Butch]

11 minutes ago, swansont said:

That implies a bound state, and infinite energy to free the particle. So it's unphysical.

I thought it was infinite already. How does it get deeper?

Perhaps it does not... Perhaps the unity point changes, not really clear on this yet. I am driven in a direction of thought by the idea that a particle is not a wave phenomenon, but rather it exhibits a wave property when detected... hope that makes sense. I have a looong way to go on this, but you all have been really great teachers.

 

"A fermion can be an elementary particle, such as the electron, or it can be a composite particle, such as the proton. ... Fermions are usually associated with matter, whereas bosons are generally force carrier particles, although in the current state of particle physics the distinction between the two concepts is unclear."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermion

Yeah, I'm feeling that!

[swansont]

1 hour ago, Butch said:

Perhaps it does not... Perhaps the unity point changes, not really clear on this yet. I am driven in a direction of thought by the idea that a particle is not a wave phenomenon, but rather it exhibits a wave property when detected... hope that makes sense. 

Diffraction and interference happens before detection. These are wave phenomena. Detection is localized, which is not a wave phenomenon.

[Butch]

16 hours ago, swansont said:

That implies a bound state, and infinite energy to free the particle. So it's unphysical.

I thought it was infinite already. How does it get deeper?

You confused me! The well is the particle. The well manifests as a particle near unity, that is to say where the slope of the hyperbolic is 45°... It does not get deeper, with a gain of energy the well is distorted, as the well returns to its base state it produces a wave perturbation in the field... A photon perhaps?

[swansont]

20 minutes ago, Butch said:

You confused me! The well is the particle. The well manifests as a particle near unity, that is to say where the slope of the hyperbolic is 45°... It does not get deeper, with a gain of energy the well is distorted, as the well returns to its base state it produces a wave perturbation in the field... A photon perhaps?

Then you are just using terminology haphazardly.

[Butch]

26 minutes ago, swansont said:

Then you are just using terminology haphazardly.

If you would correct my terminology, I would greatly appreciate it!

What I have referred to as unity is the point on the hyperbolic curve where x=y, is there a better term?

[swansont]

10 minutes ago, Butch said:

If you would correct my terminology, I would greatly appreciate it!

I don't understand your model, so that's difficult at best.

10 minutes ago, Butch said:

What I have referred to as unity is the point on the hyperbolic curve where x=y, is there a better term?

The only curve you have mentioned recently is 1/x^2 which is not a hyperbola

[Butch]

49 minutes ago, swansont said:

I don't understand your model, so that's difficult at best.

The only curve you have mentioned recently is 1/x^2 which is not a hyperbola

I must disagree...

https://www.wyzant.com/resources/answers/15097/is_there_any_relation_between_y_1_x_graph_and_hyperbola_if_so_than_explain_how

[Strange]

2 hours ago, Butch said:

I must disagree...

https://www.wyzant.com/resources/answers/15097/is_there_any_relation_between_y_1_x_graph_and_hyperbola_if_so_than_explain_how

That is explaining why 1/x is a hyperbola. 1/x² is not a hyperbola.

[Butch]

6 minutes ago, Strange said:

That is explaining why 1/x is a hyperbola. 1/x² is not a hyperbola.

1/x^1 or 1/x^2 is a function of the angle of the cutting plane.

[Strange]

3 minutes ago, Butch said:

1/x^1 or 1/x^2 is a function of the angle of the cutting plane.

Huh?

[Butch]

10 minutes ago, Strange said:

Huh?

Beg your pardon, that of course is not correct...

Brb

[studiot]

 

 

A hyperbola is the locus of a point that moves (in a plane) such that the ratio of its distance from some fixed point, S, to its (perpendicular) distance from a fixed straight line , ZQ, is a constant, greater than 1.

Butch it is up to you to prove that your equation which I take to be y = 1/x² satisfies this condition.

 

Edit yes your cross posting statement that this is an inverse square relationship is much better.

Edited May 30, 2018 by studiot

[Butch]

1 hour ago, Strange said:

That is explaining why 1/x is a hyperbola. 1/x² is not a hyperbola.

I cannot get my head around this at the moment, I did find information that it is a cubic curve... In the future I will refer to the curve as the plot of the inverse square... Unless you have a better term?

6 minutes ago, studiot said:

 

 

A hyperbola is the locus of a point that moves (in a plane) such that the ratio of its distance from some fixed point, S, to its (perpendicular) distance from a fixed straight line , ZQ, is a constant, greater than 1.

Butch it is up to you to prove that your equation which I take to be y = 1/x² satisfies this condition.

No need, it is simply the plot of the inverse square. 

An interesting aspect of this curve is, if it is plotted with x=0 to infinity, it is a right angle.

Edited May 30, 2018 by Butch

[Butch]

On 5/29/2018 at 2:20 PM, Strange said:

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

So spin is depends on how far away you are?

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

What does "reside at unity" mean?

The spin of the particle is the embeddment of the field, note that the "lip" of the well (x=y=1) is a relatively tiny area. This area is the particle proper, hence the measured spin is 1. The "lip" is a very special feature... I do not presently have the words to describe what is special about it, but I am working on it.

A particle has energy because it exists, any particle that has mass curves space.

Sorry this is not complete, I did not intend to go into it yet, and then I will do it in speculations where it belongs.

In the meantime, you all are very helpful.

Thank you.

[Butch]

On 5/29/2018 at 3:02 PM, Strange said:

Yes, gravity is a geometric effect. I don't know where spin comes into it.

Why?

Bosons can have mass and charge and spin. So why don't they create this gravitational well?

And what about composite bosons, made from fermions? Does this effect disappear when they are combined?

Indeed bosons could create a well, but it would be a gravity well in the fermion field... The boson excitation would be a wave perturbation of the fermion field, but certainly even that could produce a well of sorts ( perhaps the shape of the wave packet). The fermions are the wells in the field, they are not "in" the field. The fermion field is absolute, that is to say it is as "deep" as is possible ( perhaps infinite, a singularity). I am giving some thought to composite bosons, I will need to do some study... Right now I am thinking that because of exclusion, perhaps the fermions interacting produces a wave perturbation in the field, this could even have some relationship to charge.

I apologise for how incomplete this is, but please understand your critique guides me.

Thank you!

[swansont]

14 hours ago, Butch said:

Indeed bosons could create a well, but it would be a gravity well in the fermion field...

No, it's not going to be a gravity well.

 

[Butch]

4 hours ago, swansont said:

No, it's not going to be a gravity well.

 

Elaborate? 

Possibly this discussion could be moved to speculations?

Edited June 3, 2018 by Butch

[swansont]

1 hour ago, Butch said:

Elaborate? 

It should be obvious, but the gravitational interaction energy is negligible. There is no well. It's barely a divot.

1 hour ago, Butch said:

Possibly this discussion could be moved to speculations?

Or you could stop speculating.

[Strange]

Also, “a gravity well in the fermion field” seems to be meaningless. Gravity wells exist in the “gravitational field” (ie space-time).

[Butch]

30 minutes ago, swansont said:

It should be obvious, but the gravitational interaction energy is negligible. There is no well. It's barely a divot.

Or you could stop speculating.

There is something improper about speculation?

8 minutes ago, Butch said:

There is something improper about speculation?

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.

30 minutes ago, swansont said:

 

25 minutes ago, Strange said:

Also, “a gravity well in the fermion field” seems to be meaningless. Gravity wells exist in the “gravitational field” (ie space-time).

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?

Edited June 3, 2018 by Butch