Proto-particle

[Butch]

Mass and spin, a particle must have mass and spin... However I believe that for a particle to have more than one property it must have underlying structure, for the sake of this discussion let us assume that this is the case.

This idea presents a quandary for certainly a particle must have spin and mass to exist.

The solution to this is what I call the proto-particle, the most primitive building block of our universe.
Let us consider a particle with a single property, is that property mass or spin? Certainly it must be mass for without mass there could not be angular momentum.

My investigation of what this particles structure might be began with the idea that it was a gravitational well and nothing but a gravitational well, one that has limits of infinity.

It is simple enough to graph this well with distance the x axis and gravitational force the y axis. The problem was I had no reference frame for "x".

I have found that a more useful way to describe the proto-particle is by mapping the escape velocity with units of "c", I still don't have a reference frame for x, however as I continue my discussion you will see that is not important at this time.

This "particle" cannot stand alone... The gravity well that is the particle would collapse, however with the addition of a partner we produce a true particle with spin and mass!

The partners orbit each other producing angular momentum and providing the force (centripetal) needed to keep each proto-particle stable.

I suspect that they orbit at a distance between centers of mass of 2 times the Schwarzschild radius, but not certain about this yet.

We now have a particle with underlying structure that has mass and spin.

[Strange]

1 hour ago, Butch said:

Mass and spin, a particle must have mass and spin...

There are particles without mass and particles without success in. (But, interestingly, none without both. Yet.)

1 hour ago, Butch said:

The solution to this is what I call the proto-particle, the most primitive building block of our universe.

There are a few scientific ideas like this. For example https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preon

[Butch]

30 minutes ago, Strange said:

There are particles without mass and particles without success in. (But, interestingly, none without both. Yet.)

From what I have been reading, it was thought that there were particles without mass, but it seems they are particles with very little mass. Although a photon has a particle nature that does not make it a massless particle.

Did auto correct undermine your statement? "success in".

30 minutes ago, Strange said:

There are particles without mass and particles without success in. (But, interestingly, none without both. Yet.)

There are a few scientific ideas like this. For example https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preon

The preon models propose a particle that is the building block of the universe, the proto-particle is not quite a particle... It must exist in unison with at least one other proto-particle for the system to be a true particle. Yes there could be more than two proto-particles in the system. I am currently investigating this as it might apply to chirality and charge, any help here appreciated!

Edited September 2, 2018 by Butch

[swansont]

1 hour ago, Butch said:

From what I have been reading, it was thought that there were particles without mass, but it seems they are particles with very little mass. Although a photon has a particle nature that does not make it a massless particle.

What distinguishes the photon's particle nature from any other? Electrons, for example, have a particle nature. But they have a wave nature as well. Same for protons, and quarks, and muons, etc. They all obey the deBroglie relationship that their wavelength is h/p. So what distinction are you drawing here that you get to categorize a photon differently?

1 hour ago, Butch said:

 The preon models propose a particle that is the building block of the universe, the proto-particle is not quite a particle... It must exist in unison with at least one other proto-particle for the system to be a true particle. Yes there could be more than two proto-particles in the system. I am currently investigating this as it might apply to chirality and charge, any help here appreciated!

!

Moderator Note

Well, you know the rules here. Ask questions if you wish, but if you are discussing a model you have better actually have a model to discuss.

 

[Markus Hanke]

1 hour ago, Butch said:

From what I have been reading, it was thought that there were particles without mass, but it seems they are particles with very little mass.

This applies to the neutrino, but not to the photon, which is demonstrably massless.

1 hour ago, Butch said:

Although a photon has a particle nature that does not make it a massless particle.

If photons had a non-vanishing rest mass, several things would happen:

• Conservation of electric charge would no longer be guaranteed
• The Coulomb law would no longer be purely inverse-square; specifically, it would be weaker over large distances
• Static magnetic fields would show differences in behaviour

On a more theoretic level, quantum electrodynamics would cease to be renormalisable, which is a big problem, since one could no longer extract any physical predictions from it. All these things can be experimentally tested, and to date no hints of any of the above has been observed, so very stringent limits have been experimentally placed on any non-zero photon masses.

Note also that the photon having a rest mass would also bring down pretty much all of the rest of the Standard Model, which is obviously a problem.

[Strange]

3 hours ago, Butch said:

Did auto correct undermine your statement? "success in"

Yes, should have been “spin”

[Butch]

2 hours ago, swansont said:

What distinguishes the photon's particle nature from any other? Electrons, for example, have a particle nature. But they have a wave nature as well. Same for protons, and quarks, and muons, etc. They all obey the deBroglie relationship that their wavelength is h/p. So what distinction are you drawing here that you get to categorize a photon differently?

!

Moderator Note

Well, you know the rules here. Ask questions if you wish, but if you are discussing a model you have better actually have a model to discuss.

 

Yes, it is a model, what distinguishes it is that the basic building block cannot exist solo. I would like to include some other minds in playing with it.

[swansont]

1 minute ago, Butch said:

Yes, it is a model, what distinguishes it is that the basic building block cannot exist solo. I would like to include some other minds in playing with it.

Well then, let's have the math.

[Butch]

1 hour ago, Markus Hanke said:

This applies to the neutrino, but not to the photon, which is demonstrably massless.

If photons had a non-vanishing rest mass, several things would happen:

• Conservation of electric charge would no longer be guaranteed
• The Coulomb law would no longer be purely inverse-square; specifically, it would be weaker over large distances
• Static magnetic fields would show differences in behaviour

On a more theoretic level, quantum electrodynamics would cease to be renormalisable, which is a big problem, since one could no longer extract any physical predictions from it. All these things can be experimentally tested, and to date no hints of any of the above has been observed, so very stringent limits have been experimentally placed on any non-zero photon masses.

Note also that the photon having a rest mass would also bring down pretty much all of the rest of the Standard Model, which is obviously a problem.

Understood, however is the photon actually a particle? Could it be that it is simply a wave packet that exhibits behaviour lime that of a particle?

[Strange]

9 minutes ago, Butch said:

Understood, however is the photon actually a particle? Could it be that it is simply a wave packet that exhibits behaviour lime that of a particle?

It is not “actually” a particle. But neither is the electron (or neutrino, quark, proton, or any other). On the other hand, it is exactly as much a particle as any of the others. 

[Butch]

1 minute ago, swansont said:

Well then, let's have the math.

Right now the math I am toying with is that the proto-particles orbit each other at a distance equal to the sum of their schwarzchild radii, hence their angular momentum equals c. I did not pick this out of thin air! When charting the particles separated by 2:

1/(x+n)^2 + 1/(x-n)^2 

If n=1 the curve between the two is smooth and I believe describes a near conical section, that is a section of distorted cone.

If x<1 this curve becomes rather acute.

If x>1 this curve becomes almost obtuse.

I will post examples shortly.

2 minutes ago, Strange said:

It is not “actually” a particle. But neither is the electron (or neutrino, quark, proton, or any other). On the other hand, it is exactly as much a particle as any of the others. 

I understand what you are saying, however if the proto-particle holds up, particles are made up of gravity wells, while the photon is a wave phenomena. The curvature of the gravity well passing through a slit would produce a wave function as the proximity of the center of the wells to one side or the other, the inverse of what happens when a wave packet passes through a slit. So there is a distinction between wave packets that have a particle nature and particles that have a wave function.

[Strange]

6 minutes ago, Butch said:

hence their angular momentum equals c.

Angular momentum does not have the same dimensions as velocity, so this must be wrong.  

[Butch]

Just now, Strange said:

Angular momentum does not have the same dimensions as velocity, so this must be wrong.  

Sorry, misspoke... I of course meant angular velocity.

[Strange]

8 minutes ago, Butch said:

while the photon is a wave phenomena.

All particles are wave phenomena. Have you heard of the electron microscope? Or the double slit experiment? Or quantum theory ...

[Butch]

20 minutes ago, Strange said:

All particles are wave phenomena. Have you heard of the electron microscope? Or the double slit experiment? Or quantum theory ...

Yes, I have, I am saying that a true particle is a gravity well that has a wave function, but is not a wave.

n = 1

 

n>1

 

n<1

Edited September 2, 2018 by Butch

[Strange]

46 minutes ago, Butch said:

es, I have, I am saying that a true particle is a gravity well that has a wave function

What is the wave function of this true particle?

[Butch]

27 minutes ago, Strange said:

What is the wave function of this true particle?

That depends on the slit and the horizontal position of the particle passing through it.

If the particle is to the left, the well will have greater gravitational attraction on the left than the right and the particle will be deflected to the left.

With 2 slits then, you would have an interference pattern.

The particle is not a wave but produces a pattern like a wave.

Edited September 2, 2018 by Butch

[swansont]

1 hour ago, Butch said:

Right now the math I am toying with is that the proto-particles orbit each other at a distance equal to the sum of their schwarzchild radii, hence their angular momentum equals c. I did not pick this out of thin air!

You didn't get it from physics.

Quote

I understand what you are saying, however if the proto-particle holds up, particles are made up of gravity wells, while the photon is a wave phenomena. The curvature of the gravity well passing through a slit would produce a wave function as the proximity of the center of the wells to one side or the other, the inverse of what happens when a wave packet passes through a slit. So there is a distinction between wave packets that have a particle nature and particles that have a wave function.

!

Moderator Note

Gravity wells aren't going to get you anywhere, and you were told not to bring this up again without the math.