An alternative to quarks?

[swansont]

Neutrinos are fermions and are subject to the Pauli exclusion principal, but still have a combined wave function to describe their probability through space to Earth, thus you only measure one of the 3 types at a time from the equation to describe their probability since a single equation collapses down to one single point when measured. I don't see why this would not be true for quarks.

 

Even if there were such a thing as "quark oscillations", we're talking about observing three of them inside of a proton or neutron, not having a beam of quarks change flavor over time.

 

Because there's only two things you can distinguish at a time. To my knowledge you can't distinguish between two particles in the same quantum state, but one quark would also have to follow the exclusion principal, so with that logic, I should observe two points. One for the quark excluded by the principal, and another one because the combined wave function of the two in the same exact state could only collapse down to a single point upon measurement.

 

I can't really decipher the "logic" in this. You can only distinguish two things at a time? What?

 

All actual observations occur because of photons. You can't see magnetic fields with your eyes, you can't see saltiness with your eyes, you can't see gravity with your eyes, just photons, so in order to actually observe them, you'd need photons to be emitted from them. Furthermore, I don't know of a machine that is designed to directly detect the color charge of quarks. And I'm still curious to know what photons they emit, seeing as how we can individually see them.

 

Protons are much much smaller than the electron clouds around them, I don't even know if we have the technology to distinguish between two different objects at that small of a scale.

 

You can't see magnetic fields with your eyes, you can't see saltiness with your eyes, you can't see gravity with your eyes, and yet we can still measure these things, because we don't use photons to do so! You put iron filings on a sheet to show a magnetic field. Then you see the pattern with your eyes. Similarly, you collide particles and use detectors to see what happened to them — what was given off, where they went, how much energy they had. You use your eyes to go through the data.

 

There's a huge difference between "I don't know of a machine" and "There is no machine". To assume that there isn't because you don't know is a logical fallacy. The good news is that ignorance is a correctable situation. We don't detect color charge directly, AFAIK, but why do you have to detect it directly? You would exclude a whole lot of physics if that was a requirement.

[questionposter]

Even if there were such a thing as "quark oscillations", we're talking about observing three of them inside of a proton or neutron, not having a beam of quarks change flavor over time.

No, the point of that is that neutrinos themselves don't actually "change flavors", but that all 3 generations of neutrinos traveling through space together can be described with one equation even with the exclusion principal. Neutrinos don't actually change, they just have different oscillation patterns that make one type more probable over time when you combine their equations.

http://en.wikipedia....ino_oscillation

Would you really think that the actual mass of an individual neutrino is spontaneously increasing and decreasing in the vacuum of space?

 

 

 

I can't really decipher the "logic" in this. You can only distinguish two things at a time? What?

You can only have two points with this system because there are only two equations that can collapse down to a single point. One for the excluded one which I don't think we're looking at the right way, and another for the equation used to described the single quantum state of both the other quarks.

Also, as far as I have seen, when you ionize a photon with a specific amount of energy, you only get a single photon back, like a gamma ray, not 3 photons, not 3 different types of photons over time, just one type per ionization. http://en.wikipedia....pton_scattering

If there is only 1 possible photon emitted per photon shot at a proton, all of the quarks can be described by one equation and therefore the entire proton collapses down to a single point, so you'd only observe one point.

 

 

You can't see magnetic fields with your eyes, you can't see saltiness with your eyes, you can't see gravity with your eyes, and yet we can still measure these things, because we don't use photons to do so! You put iron filings on a sheet to show a magnetic field. Then you see the pattern with your eyes. Similarly, you collide particles and use detectors to see what happened to them — what was given off, where they went, how much energy they had. You use your eyes to go through the data.

Isn't it the physics of quarks themselves that would make it impossible to observe an individual one to confirm what your saying?

http://molaire1.pers...fr/e_quark.html

"Quarks have a unique property: they are incapable of existing alone, unaccompanied! "

 

There's a huge difference between "I don't know of a machine" and "There is no machine". To assume that there isn't because you don't know is a logical fallacy. The good news is that ignorance is a correctable situation. We don't detect color charge directly, AFAIK, but why do you have to detect it directly? You would exclude a whole lot of physics if that was a requirement.

 

I never said "I don't know of therefore it doesn't exist", that was your assumption of me, not mine, and it turns out there isn't a machine capable of doing that anyway.

Besides, your even forgetting that there is strong evidence for quarks by the fact that photons can scatter backwards when you shoot them at a proton, but still not a direct observation of an individual quark, they all act as the same particle or can be described by the same equation, so there is only one collapse. The probability of a proton doesn't collapse to 3 points upon measurement, just one.

Edited April 22, 2012 by questionposter

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

You can only have two points with this system because there are only two equations that can collapse down to a single point. One for the excluded one which I don't think we're looking at the right way, and another for the equation used to described the single quantum state of both the other quarks.

None of the three quarks may be in the same state. There are three quarks with three different quantum states. That is what the Pauli exclusion principle requires.

[questionposter]

None of the three quarks may be in the same state. There are three quarks with three different quantum states. That is what the Pauli exclusion principle requires.

 

Wow, so they have to all be in different states yet we don't observe 3 different types photons being scattered per 1 energy level of a photon that a proton absorbs.

Though, doesn't the Pauli-exclusion principal state that two fermions can in fact occupy the same quantum state if they have opposite spin?

Edited April 22, 2012 by questionposter

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Wow, so they have to all be in different states yet we don't observe 3 different types photons being scattered per 1 energy level of a photon that a proton absorbs.

Though, doesn't the Pauli-exclusion principal state that two fermions can in fact occupy the same quantum state if they have opposite spin?

If they have opposite spin, it's not the "same" quantum state.

 

What do you mean by 3 different types of photons? There's only one kind of photon, and photons are bosons.

[questionposter]

If they have opposite spin, it's not the "same" quantum state.

 

What do you mean by 3 different types of photons? There's only one kind of photon, and photons are bosons.

 

I mean one type of frequency output per input, like with electrons.

 

Also, with the Compton scattering with protons, how do protons not radiate their energy away if the photon they scatter has a higher frequency than what it had before it interacted with a proton? Or is that just the uncertainty principal?

Edited April 22, 2012 by questionposter

[Dr Who]

Has anybody else ever come up with an alternative to quark theory?

 

According to my theory of everything; all particles with rest mass, must be made from a mixture of positive and negative charges, except electrons which are made from a single negative charge, and positrons which are made of single positive charges.

 

For instance we might assume that a proton is composed of 1000 negative charges and 1001 positive charges, all solidly packed together. The charge of the proton can be attributed to the fact that it has one extra positive charge, whilst the mass can be explained by the large number of charges present.

 

The advantage of my theory is that just about everything in the universe is composed of two basic ingredients, positive and negative charges.

 

If Occam was still around he might have approved. But what about others, would they like to see the universe simplified, or would they rather keep the quarks, the gluons, the Higgs and all the rest?

 

This is certainly an interesting idea, I don’t know if you have got any further with your theory. However it sounds very similar to another one that I read, not long ago. There they proposed that all the sub-atomic particles are made up from EM waves, which are themselves made up of positive and negative charges (which is where I made the connection). Anyway, you can find information on it at www.baldr-limited.co.uk/books. Let me know what you think, as I found it all very interesting.

 

 

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

This is certainly an interesting idea, I don’t know if you have got any further with your theory. However it sounds very similar to another one that I read, not long ago. There they proposed that all the sub-atomic particles are made up from EM waves, which are themselves made up of positive and negative charges (which is where I made the connection). Anyway, you can find information on it at www.baldr-limited.co.uk/books. Let me know what you think, as I found it all very interesting.

Please stop advertising your own books on SFN, and read rule 7 of our forum rules. Pretending you happened to have read the book recently is a neat trick, but we're not dumb.

[Dr Who]

Please stop advertising your own books on SFN, and read rule 7 of our forum rules. Pretending you happened to have read the book recently is a neat trick, but we're not dumb.

 

Sorry, I didn't mean to offend. However the books are free for anybody to read if they wish (I don't make a penny from the site or any downloads).

[questionposter]

Please stop advertising your own books on SFN, and read rule 7 of our forum rules. Pretending you happened to have read the book recently is a neat trick, but we're not dumb.

 

What? I've seen Dr. Rocket recommend books all the time and he never got a penalty. I've even seen mods do it.

 

This is certainly an interesting idea, I don't know if you have got any further with your theory. However it sounds very similar to another one that I read, not long ago. There they proposed that all the sub-atomic particles are made up from EM waves, which are themselves made up of positive and negative charges (which is where I made the connection). Anyway, you can find information on it at www.baldr-limited.co.uk/books. Let me know what you think, as I found it all very interesting.

 

 

 

I think the theory is logical in that context, but it's possible we may encounter a situation where there has to be more than two charges to explain why certain particles like to stick together and repel each other.

Edited April 25, 2012 by questionposter

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

What? I've seen Dr. Rocket recommend books all the time and he never got a penalty. I've even seen mods do it.

He didn't write them, then pretend he hadn't. Self-promotion is the problem.

[newts]

This is certainly an interesting idea, I don't know if you have got any further with your theory.

Your link gave a FORBIDDEN. Actually the discussion did help me focus on my ideas and improve my model, so in that sense I have got a lot further, and I have now done a number of calculations which I never thought possible when I started the thread http://squishtheory....research-paper/. However I have not got any further in persuading people to take my model seriously, indeed the better I make it the more unpopular it seems to become. Most people prefer accepted models, and those that don't tend to make up their own theories, so there really is nobody in the market for new ideas. If you start a thread explaining your idea, I will take a look.

 

I think the theory is logical in that context, but it's possible we may encounter a situation where there has to be more than two charges to explain why certain particles like to stick together and repel each other.

Not sure if this was a comment about my theory. Also unsure whether you meant two types of charge, rather than two actual charges.

[questionposter]

Not sure if this was a comment about my theory. Also unsure whether you meant two types of charge, rather than two actual charges.

 

There's something called color charge which is the same thing as the normal charge you think of except in more than two varieties. With protons you have + and -, but with current quark theory, you have "green" "blue" "red", which just happen to be the names of charges because there aren't many better systems of names to call them, and then for gluons have have even as much as 8 different charges.

 

http://en.wikipedia....ki/Color_charge

Edited April 26, 2012 by questionposter

[uncool]

There's something called color charge which is the same thing as the normal charge you think of except in more than two varieties. With protons you have + and -, but with current quark theory, you have "green" "blue" "red", which just happen to be the names of charges because there aren't many better systems of names to call them, and then for gluons have have even as much as 8 different charges.

 

http://en.wikipedia....ki/Color_charge

This is exactly what newts is rejecting with his idea.

=Uncool-

[qsa]

I have not read the whole thread, so I don't know if this has been mentioned. The electrons and the positrons that make up your proton will annihilate each other, since they have the same mass but opposite charge.

[newts]

I have not read the whole thread, so I don't know if this has been mentioned. The electrons and the positrons that make up your proton will annihilate each other, since they have the same mass but opposite charge.

The idea is that unstable particles decay because the positive and negative charges unravel, so there is a mechanism to explain particle decay. Obviously this cannot happen with lone electrons and lone positrons. Protons do not decay because they have a uniquely stable charge configuration, however if protons collide this structure can be disrupted and they do unravel.

 

There's something called color charge which is the same thing as the normal charge you think of except in more than two varieties. With protons you have + and -, but with current quark theory, you have "green" "blue" "red", which just happen to be the names of charges because there aren't many better systems of names to call them, and then for gluons have have even as much as 8 different charges.

The point of my model is to replace the impossible complexity of the standard model. There are no gluons in my model as the strong nuclear force is explained by the attraction between surface charges. There are many reported characteristics of particles that I do not know enough about to try to explain, however the different possible arrangements of charges within particles has plenty of scope for explaining things like magnetic moments.

[qsa]

The idea is that unstable particles decay because the positive and negative charges unravel, so there is a mechanism to explain particle decay. Obviously this cannot happen with lone electrons and lone positrons. Protons do not decay because they have a uniquely stable charge configuration, however if protons collide this structure can be disrupted and they do unravel.

 

what is this "have a uniquely stable charge configuration", where did you get it from, do you have an equation to prove it. We have a basic fact of annihilation, are you disbuting this fact, no amount of charge confiquration will overcome that.

Edited April 27, 2012 by qsa

[Bignose]

There are many reported characteristics of particles that I do not know enough about to try to explain,

 

Maybe, just maybe, that is why the standard model is what it is today? I mean, don't you think that of the thousands of people who worked on this, they if there was a great gross simplification that could have been made, that it might have already been found? Don't you think that maybe it is just possible that the standard model is complicated so that it can make some correct complicated predictions? You readily admit that you don't understand the current model. And now you readily admit that there is a bunch more that you (and by association your model) cannot explain -- tell me again why you are so sure that your model is superior?

Edited April 27, 2012 by Bignose

[questionposter]

The point of my model is to replace the impossible complexity of the standard model. There are no gluons in my model as the strong nuclear force is explained by the attraction between surface charges. There are many reported characteristics of particles that I do not know enough about to try to explain, however the different possible arrangements of charges within particles has plenty of scope for explaining things like magnetic moments.

 

In your system, how would you describe 3 different places in the same relative region in a single particle collision map that seems to result from repulsion of an unknown force? Because you'd notice that certain particles are diverging from one another, and although you can't isolate quarks the energy put into colliding particles can generate new particles and I think even hadrons.

Edited April 28, 2012 by questionposter

[newts]

what is this "have a uniquely stable charge configuration", where did you get it from, do you have an equation to prove it. We have a basic fact of annihilation, are you disbuting this fact, no amount of charge confiquration will overcome that.

Electron/positron pairs can unravel to create photons, and photons can turn into electron/positron pairs. Those are the two processes that essentially explain all particle creation and decay; thus for the benefit of search engines, Squish Theory provides an exceptionally simple theory of everything.

 

I know that protons are composed of about 2501 charges, but I do not know the exact number, and I cannot explain the structure other than saying it is roughly spherical. You are right that saying the proton has a uniquely stable structure is not a proper explanation, any more than physicists saying particles decay because it is energetically favourable is a proper explanation; but at least I have a mechanism to account for some things. If you cannot accept that charges could cohabit without annihilating, then you will find my model completely impossible.

 

Maybe, just maybe, that is why the standard model is what it is today? I mean, don't you think that of the thousands of people who worked on this, they if there was a great gross simplification that could have been made, that it might have already been found? Don't you think that maybe it is just possible that the standard model is complicated so that it can make some correct complicated predictions? You readily admit that you don't understand the current model. And now you readily admit that there is a bunch more that you (and by association your model) cannot explain -- tell me again why you are so sure that your model is superior?

You argue that because the universe seems complex, then it must be so. However the universe has always seemed complex until it has been understood. The complicated way in which the planets wandered around the sky, at first seemed to require that each planet be awarded a specially designed epicycle. Chemists reduced the complexity of the world to 92 elements, physicists then clipped atoms down to just 3 particles. What I am doing is pushing this process to its logical conclusion, so in one sense it is odd that I should be seen as the enemy of physics. However at the human level this response is to be expected; because most people nowadays seem to accept the creed of the religious extremist Dawkins, that science is the one true faith, and that all of current scientific belief must be true because 'it is proved by experiment'; and therefore anybody who criticises any mainstream idea must be condemned as a follower of a different religion.

 

In your system, how would you describe 3 different places in the same relative region in a single particle collision map that seems to result from repulsion of an unknown force? Because you'd notice that certain particles are diverging from one another, and although you can't isolate quarks the energy put into colliding particles can generate new particles and I think even hadrons.

I think you are referring to inelastic scattering experiments. At low energies the electrons were observed to bounce off the proton elastically as if off a sphere. In inelastic scattering, it seems that an electron breaks the proton apart creating new particles. The idea of a high-energy electron smashing a proton into new particles, is consistent with my model; but as is typical of recent physics, there are loads of pages assuring us that inelastic scattering proves that quarks exist, but none that actually describe the experiment properly. If we are to discuss the experiment somebody needs to explain exactly how it was done, and where the newly created particles, as well as the electrons were detected.

[questionposter]

To somebody who believes in quarks, gluons and Higgs, the evidence might appear to support them. However a non-believer could argue that all the experimental evidence suggests that these things do not exist.

How does experimental evidence suggest they don't exist? You can see that protons and neutrons are broken into smaller particles when you collide them.

 

 

My theory is based around electric charges and electric forces, whose existence is hard to deny.

Quarks and gluons also have these, they just have more than 2.

 

On the other hand all attempts to detect isolated quarks have reportedly failed. Most people probably accept that this is because quarks are undetectable, but it could also be argued that this is because quarks are not a proper description of reality.

Individual quarks can't be isolated/detected, but you can still see combinations of only two/three quarks, sometimes with their anti-matter counterpart in the same system

 

Similarly billion dollar experiments have failed to detected the Higgs. This could of course be the fault of the experiment, but it would be perhaps more rational to accept that it is because the Higgs does not exist.

We can't directly detect them, but as more time goes on, the evidence for them is like that of black holes.

 

Again there is no experimental evidence that gluons exist, even though they are supposed to have some kind of rest mass in order to account for the fact that they do not venture far from their host quark.

When hadrons decay they sometimes shoot jets of gluons, and in recent particle collisions, labs like at the hadron collider have managed to make quark-gluon plasma, or a substance so hot that the current model of a proton would have to break into it's component particles. http://en.wikipedia....rk-gluon_plasma

Edited April 28, 2012 by questionposter

[Bignose]

You argue that because the universe seems complex, then it must be so. However the universe has always seemed complex until it has been understood. The complicated way in which the planets wandered around the sky, at first seemed to require that each planet be awarded a specially designed epicycle. Chemists reduced the complexity of the world to 92 elements, physicists then clipped atoms down to just 3 particles. What I am doing is pushing this process to its logical conclusion, so in one sense it is odd that I should be seen as the enemy of physics. However at the human level this response is to be expected; because most people nowadays seem to accept the creed of the religious extremist Dawkins, that science is the one true faith, and that all of current scientific belief must be true because 'it is proved by experiment'; and therefore anybody who criticises any mainstream idea must be condemned as a follower of a different religion. (I added the emphasis)

 

It is only 'logical' if it makes predictions that agree with the observations. So far, 100s of posts in this thread later -- there is completely non-pithy evidence at its most generous. When those simplifications you cite above were discovered -- guess what, all the evidence fit really, really nicely into the observations -- something that your idea has to date failed to do.

 

And, I really wish you'd drop this religious persecution vein in your replies. I'm not persecuting you. Just trying to get to you answer questions.

 

Lastly, speaking of which, you didn't really answer my question. Considering the non-pithy evidence you've presented, and furthermore your admittance of your lack of knowledge about the current model and the properties of the particles in question -- how can you be so confident that your idea is the right idea? How can you be so sure that your model is superior?

Edited April 29, 2012 by Bignose

[qsa]

If you cannot accept that charges could cohabit without annihilating, then you will find my model completely impossible.

 

 

 

It is not me who says that, it is standard physics with no controvercy.

 

I agree that the proton structure is not well understood, that is why whoever comes up with the correct quark confinment theory can claim the noble prize. But still the present theories are best available, in the same sense as QM with its surreal wavefunction and QED with its virtual photons, but with less asthetic.

 

I don't know if you know, but there are many alternative theories to model protons, even electrons and particles in general. They come under wide classes of theories from mainstream to the fringe, but they all start with relatively reasonable assumptions. And usually not too far off reqular physics techniques which are robust(they work) by experience.

 

But I also think that not every new idea has to solve all problems. Sometimes it is enough that it shines some light on a particular aspect, but the assumptions and the follow up derivations should be sound.

Edited April 29, 2012 by qsa

[uncool]

Since it's relevant to this thread: another one of the baryons has been found: the neutral xi star (beauty, strange, and down, if I'm not mistaken).

http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=3926

=Uncool-

Edited April 29, 2012 by uncool

[questionposter]

Since it's relevant to this thread: another one of the baryons has been found: the neutral xi star (beauty, strange, and down, if I'm not mistaken).

http://languagelog.l...edu/nll/?p=3926

=Uncool-

 

Well of course different combinations of quarks would exist, I'm surprised they didn't announce this sooner.

Edited April 29, 2012 by questionposter