Idea about particle physics

Merlin3069 · May 4, 2012

What if, and bear with me here, the reason that physics breaks down when you look at smaller particles, is because those particles do not represent the forces your trying to calculate.

What I mean is, we know that the photon represents ElectroMagnetic energy (light waves) and were pretty sure there is a particle that represents gravity etc.

it makes sense that when your looking at *other* particles on the same scale, they would not be affected by those laws of physics.

For example, if we break apart an atom, splitting its gravity particles out of it and putting it back together without them (this is just an example), then we could not expect the particle to have any gravity, or to respond to gravity as it would have before.

In summary, once we break apart the atom, we cant expect its smaller peices to behave like smaller versions of the atom itself, each particle type should and will have its own laws of physics because each particle is only going to respond to one force or represent one energy.

When we study statistics, we say that the larger a sample size, the closer the group of objects were studying approaches a normal value.

im going to make up some random numbers.

lets say a hydrogen atom, on average, because of its size, contains 50 gravity particles (im not sure the technical name, i think its gravitrinos), but some contain less and some contain more, just because the universe is not perfect.

the more hydrogen atoms we have, the more it will look like they ALL have 50 gravitrinos, and the more stable our calculations of gravity on the atom will be

but if were only looking at a few hydrogen atoms, or even one, the likelyness of getting the 50 gravitrinos on average is very low

because of this our calculations would be skewed and it would *look* like the laws of physics break down, when in fact its not the laws that break down, but rather our methods for using them

So to summarize this whole idea

Because the universe is not perfect, each atom is unique, you cannot do individual calculations on atoms with the *average* numbers and expect the calculations to be precise.

I dont know if this is something new or if its something that has been well documented, i just thought of it the other day and wanted to post it.

elas · May 16, 2012

"For example, if we break apart an atom, splitting its gravity particles out of it and putting it back together without them (this is just an example), then we could not expect the particle to have any gravity, or to respond to gravity as it would have before".

Particles, composite particles and atoms do not contain gravitons, they have an effect upon adjacent gravitons that causes adjacent gravitons to become part of the overall field structure. Think of a planet as a mass without hollows, its presence polarises surrounding gravitons in the direction of its centre of mass, they are temporarily part of the planetary structure but, are not included within the panet's description (mass, volume, radius etc). Remove the planet and the (unpolarised) gravitons remain because gravitons are not removable.

Edited May 16, 2012 by elas

pmb · May 18, 2012

What if, and bear with me here, the reason that physics breaks down when you look at smaller particles, is because those particles do not represent the forces your trying to calculate.

Smaller particles? What does that mean? Smaller than what? The term "particile" often means a point particle which means that they have zero spatial extent. For this kind of particle there is nothing smaller. An electron is such a particle. Same with the photon and neutrino, graviton etc.

What I mean is, we know that the photon represents ElectroMagnetic energy (light waves) and were pretty sure there is a particle that represents gravity etc.

Right. The graviton.

it makes sense that when your looking at *other* particles on the same scale, they would not be affected by those laws of physics.

Scale? What do you mean by that term in this context?

For example, if we break apart an atom, splitting its gravity particles out of it ...

Atoms don't contain gravity particles.

Merlin3069 · May 22, 2012

Were smashing atoms to try and find gravitons

it wouldn't make much sense to do that if atoms did not contain gravitons

let me change *some* of the original idea and see if i can put it in a different light

idea rewritten:

What if, and bear with me here, the reason that physics breaks down when you look at particles, is because those particles do not represent the forces your trying to calculate. What I mean is, we know that the photon represents ElectroMagnetic energy (light waves) and were pretty sure there is a particle that represents gravity and were looking into the possibility of other particles representing other forces. it makes sense that when your looking at *other* particles, they would not be affected by those laws of physics, but only by the forces which they represent For example, if we break apart an atom, splitting its the particles that represent gravity out of it and putting it back together without them (or, if the gravity particles are not part of the atom then if we were to disassociate the atom and the particles *they have to be linked _somehow_*), then we could not expect the atom to have any mass (no effect of gravity on the atom), or to respond to gravity as it would have before. In summary, once we break apart the atom, we cant expect its smaller peices to behave like smaller versions of the atom itself, each particle type should and will have its own laws of physics because each particle is only going to respond to one force or represent one energy.

an analogy for this:

an office of 100 people consists of two I.T. guys to fix the computers, (the I.T. guys are the gravity particles), remove the I.T. guys and theres no one there to react to the issues that the computers would have, in the same way the atom would not be able to react to gravity if we removed (or disassociated) the gravity particles.

The following was a thought that came up after the above, the above (now that im awake enough to think about it rather than just write my thoughts, seems pretty obvious to anyone that has any common sense)

When we study statistics, we say that the larger a sample size, the closer the group of objects were studying approaches a normal value. <example numbers used> lets say a hydrogen atom, on average, because of its size, contains 50 particles that represent gravity (im not sure the technical name, i think its gravitrinos), but some contain less and some contain more, just because the universe is not perfect. the more hydrogen atoms we have, the more it will look like they ALL have 50 gravitrinos, and the more stable our calculations of gravity on the atom will be but if were only looking at a few hydrogen atoms, or even one, the likelyness of getting the 50 gravitrinos on average is very low because of this our calculations would be skewed and it would *look* like the laws of physics break down, when in fact its not the laws that break down, but rather our methods for using them

a more detailed example, the average atom stated above has 50 gravity particles, were looking at a group of 10 atoms that contain between 45 and 55 of those particles each, the average for a sample size so small would likely not be exactly 50, and so our calculations would vary from one set to the next

if we took a group of a thousand of those atom, and the *actual* average number of those particles is 50, then we would expect the average of our group to be 50 and then our calculations according to the standard laws of physics would be quite accurate.

when we take just one atom, which may have anywhere from 45-55 gravity particles, and try to use the normal calculations (as we would on an object containing millions of atoms) then our calculations are going to likely be way off.

to summarize this entire idea:

the reason that normal physics does not apply well to atoms is that the universe is not perfect.

the reason that normal physics does not apply well to particles is that not ALL particles are affected by ALL laws of physics.

**imatfaal** · May 22, 2012

!

Moderator Note

Merlin - you are gonna have to clean up that text before many people bother to read it. The members here tend to prefer simple text rather than many colours and fonts - so reposting without all the tags is probably best

Merlin3069 · May 23, 2012

The only tag i used was a quote tag, no colors or anything... thats weird

there seems to be a bug in the forum software, when i redid it and previewed it did the same thing...

Were smashing atoms to try and find gravitons

it wouldn't make much sense to do that if atoms did not contain gravitons

let me change *some* of the original idea and see if i can put it in a different light

idea rewritten:

What if, and bear with me here, the reason that physics breaks down when you look at particles, is because those particles do not represent the forces your trying to calculate.

What I mean is, we know that the photon represents ElectroMagnetic energy (light waves) and were pretty sure there is a particle that represents gravity and were looking into the possibility of other particles representing other forces.

it makes sense that when your looking at *other* particles, they would not be affected by those laws of physics, but only by the forces which they represent

For example, if we break apart an atom, splitting its the particles that represent gravity out of it and putting it back together without them (or, if the gravity particles are not part of the atom then if we were to disassociate the atom and the particles *they have to be linked _somehow_*), then we could not expect the atom to have any mass (no effect of gravity on the atom), or to respond to gravity as it would have before.

In summary, once we break apart the atom, we cant expect its smaller peices to behave like smaller versions of the atom itself, each particle type should and will have its own laws of physics because each particle is only going to respond to one force or represent one energy.

an analogy for this:

an office of 100 people consists of two I.T. guys to fix the computers, (the I.T. guys are the gravity particles), remove the I.T. guys and theres no one there to react to the issues that the computers would have, in the same way the atom would not be able to react to gravity if we removed (or disassociated) the gravity particles.

<--->

The following was a thought that came up after the above, the above (now that im awake enough to think about it rather than just write my thoughts, seems pretty obvious to anyone that has any common sense)

<--->

When we study statistics, we say that the larger a sample size, the closer the group of objects were studying approaches a normal value.

lets say a hydrogen atom, on average, because of its size, contains 50 particles that represent gravity (im not sure the technical name, i think its gravitrinos), but some contain less and some contain more, just because the universe is not perfect.

the more hydrogen atoms we have, the more it will look like they ALL have 50 gravitrinos, and the more stable our calculations of gravity on the atom will be

but if were only looking at a few hydrogen atoms, or even one, the likelyness of getting the 50 gravitrinos on average is very low

because of this our calculations would be skewed and it would *look* like the laws of physics break down, when in fact its not the laws that break down, but rather our methods for using them

a more detailed example, the average atom stated above has 50 gravity particles, were looking at a group of 10 atoms that contain between 45 and 55 of those particles each, the average for a sample size so small would likely not be exactly 50, and so our calculations would vary from one set to the next

if we took a group of a thousand of those atom, and the *actual* average number of those particles is 50, then we would expect the average of our group to be 50 and then our calculations according to the standard laws of physics would be quite accurate.

when we take just one atom, which may have anywhere from 45-55 gravity particles, and try to use the normal calculations (as we would on an object containing millions of atoms) then our calculations are going to likely be way off.

to summarize this entire idea

the reason that normal physics does not apply well to atoms is that the universe is not perfect.

the reason that normal physics does not apply well to particles is that not ALL particles are affected by ALL laws of physics.

removed a lot of the line breaks, it should work ok now

md65536 · May 23, 2012

Were smashing atoms to try and find gravitons

it wouldn't make much sense to do that if atoms did not contain gravitons

I'm speaking as an amateur here:

Particles are not like familiar human-scale objects in at least 2 ways that are applicable here:

- Particles are not always persistent. There are conservation laws such as for energy, but not particle count or type. If you smash apart one set of particles, you may find that it is now some other set of particles, and not always the same new set each time. Many particles exist only for a very short time.

- The nature of existence is defined behaviorally, and the properties of particles aren't all the same as the properties of large objects. So if you consider a particle, such as a graviton or photon, you needn't always think of it "being somewhere" as a thing, only that its existence can meaningfully be considered by the measurable effects it has on stuff. The main thing about a particle is not that it must have familiar properties (size, mass, shape, location, whatever), but that it is a discrete quantity or "packet" rather than a continuous measurement.

So to say that photons are particles doesn't mean that light is made of bits of material "stuff" flying around, it just means that the properties of light are essentially quantized. Gravitons would mean quantized gravity propagation.

So I think you could say, rather than cracking open an atom and having gravitons spill out, you could imagine or describe the formation of a graviton occurring anywhere its properties begin to be measurable, and it comes into being not as some kind of conjuring of new matter, but simply as the measured effect of whatever process caused it.

It's all properties. Particles need not have a more substantial existence than that.

Sign In

Idea about particle physics

Recommended Posts

Merlin3069

elas

pmb

Merlin3069

imatfaal

Merlin3069

md65536

Create an account or sign in to comment

Create an account

Sign in

Browse

Activity

Important Information