It is demonstrable that the chains of decay of muons and tauons finally ending in a single electron resp. positron. The intermediate stages of the different decays are caused on the one hand by the higher mass = energy and on the other hand on various internal energy of the decaying particles.
Therefore muons and espacially tauons show superior number decays what means that additional particles arise during decay. This additional particles are caused by pair production. The arising electrons/positrons are demonstrable the elementary building blocks of all particles and atomic nuclei.
Thesis The Reason of a realistic View to Particles and Atomic Nuclei
No-muons and tau leptons carry an additional number that's conserved. That's why they're not excited electrons.
It's wrong to claim that tau leptons only decay to positrons-since they carry electric charge, they do decay to electrons and the missing energy that accompanies the transformation can be identified with an electron anti-neutrino and a tau neutrino.
All this has been measured quite extensively.
@Stam: Thanks for your answer.
I don't claim that 'tau leptons only dacay to positrons'.
The decay of negative tauons (and muons) ends at least in a single electron, the decay of a positive tauon (and muon) in a single positron. Follow the very different decay chains!
If the accepted theory is right than would also arise different numbers and types of 'neutrinos' during the different decay chains. This is very surprising and contradictory.
I would remind furthermore at the fact that 'neutrinos' are never directly proven. There exist only indirect evidences. In other words: All observations and experimnts are evaluated under the assumption that neutrinos are existing. But you can all the observations and experiments declare by other causes.
Par example: Research Theory and reality on the experiment of Reines/Cowan 1956
There's nothing contradictory in the observation that the missing energy from the decay of the tau lepton into an electron isn't carried by the electron antineutrino, but by another particle, the tau neutrino.
The Standard Model describes this perfectly well.
There's no difference, beyond a play on words, between ``direct'' and ``indirect'' measurements in physics.Neutrinos have been measured as well as electrons have been.
All measurements of neutrinos describe electrical neutral particles, with spin 1/2, that carry weak charge and particular lepton numbers. And there aren't any measurements that are in conflict with these statements.
Whether the neutrinos are massive or massless doesn't affect these properties.
@Stam: "Neutrinos have been measured as well as electrons have been." This isn't right.
Electrons/positrons are directly observable (particle tracks) and they can be influenced par example by electric or magnetic fields (Braun tube). Neutrinos never!
If you measure or observe a 'neutrino' you measure an event you suspect it is caused by 'neutrinos'. See the linked paper. Reins/Cowan heve made a good experimental job but the evaluation was at least incomplete. They had to point to the fact that neutrons are causing the same effect as the assumed 'neutrinos'. Not a word!
I claim that the whole 'Neutrino-physics' is nothing than self-deception.
We know as Pauli should also have known that all particles/atomic nuclei/atoms/molecules have an energy spectre resp. very different internal energy. The beta-spectre results from the different energies of the decaying particles/nuclei. Furthermore, if the internal energy reached a certain level than it is possible that an atomic nucleus decays contrary to the 'normal' direction of decay. The suspected energy of a 'neutrino' is nothing than an energy peak of the internal energy.
Counter-question: Can the standard model declare all the different types of particle-matter we have to expect? Also their mutual conversions?
Matter is basically a very uniform object and not a result of theories.
It's possible to calculate and to measure the energy spectrum from beta decay and both are perfectly well described by the transformation of a neutron into a proton, an eectron and an anti-neutrino; and this is known for many decades.
Nothing changes by calling the part of the energy carried by the neutrino by some other name. The reason is very simple: the transformation goes both ways. For certain applications it just so happens that one way is more useful than the other.
The Standard Model doesn't ``declare'' the different types of particles-it describes them. And it does describe their transformations. Everything that has been measured to date is consistent with the calculations using the Standard Model, in particular the transformations of taus and of muons into electrons and the effects of the neutrinos.
That neutrinos are massive is described by the Standard Model; the interactions that describe how provide hints to effects beyond the Standard Model. The Standard Model is incomplete in this regard. It's still consistent, however.
Particle tracks are no more or less a description of the movement of a particle than any other way of describing its properties. The fact that neutrinos are observed in a different way than electrically charged particles doesn't mean anything particular, since it's possible to describe both ways equally well.
The most particles in the SM are invented particles. Only electron/positron, muons, tauons are directly observed and undoubtful existing. I would remaind you on the disastrous LHC-experiment - quarks do not exist!
Neutrons are decaying depending on their internal energy also in a proton and a pion:
(1) n → p + e− (mostly)
(2) n → p + μ− (occasional)
The second decay shows that a neutron with high internal energy decays into an exited electron = muon. What else? Why shold I belive in the cumbersome theories which are already disproved by experiments?
@Stam: You're refer to the well known but questionable theories in order to prove them. Has any theory resp. theoretician predicted the world of particles before Bequerels discovery of radioactivity? No! They invented instead of this afterwards dozens particles by theoretical need to declare and describe the real and observed particles. As I said above: The evaluation of experiments and observations is determined by the prefabricated theories and all the experiments have to prove the theories. Theoretical physics is facing a collapse.
Thesis The Reason of a realistic View to Particles and Atomic Nuclei
Hans-G. Hildebrandt you are almost completely right. I hope to publish in RG an article giving a very detail picture of particles in general. With a bit of hard work I will finish this during this year.
All particles of the Standard Model are ``invented'' in that sense-the Standard Model itself is a human invention. There isn't any distinction in any model of particles, between ``real and observed particles'' and some others. One shouldn't confuse history of physics with physics.
Radioactivity is a separate interaction from electromagnetism; and the strong interaction is, yet, another one (that was discovered experimentally in the 1930s in fact, by the Joliot-Curies, when they were studying ``artificial radioactivity'', for which they received the Nobel Prize).
Physics, incidentally, is an experimental science: before the discovery of radioactivity, the only charge carried by matter was electric charge-and neither the electron nor the proton had been discovered. It took some time for the interaction that described radioactivity to be described quantitatively-that was in 1934, by Fermi-and to be fully understood, essentially, by 1972, when it was recognized that quarks and leptons were both required for the electroweak sector of the Standard Model to make sense-and for understanding that this implied that the electric charge of the proton, as a bound state of three quarks, belonging to the first family, is exactly opposite to the electric charge of the electron and that this property can't be affected by any other interactions. And that similar cancellations must occur for the electric charge of the baryons, constructed from the quarks of the other families against the charge of the muon and of the tau respectively.
If theoretical physics is facing a collapse, I'm just surprised that the people making the claim are wasting their time with it, instead of doing something else.
Physics is about calculations-not preaching. The Standard Model is known-so there's no point saying the same things in different words.
Reactions (1) and (2) are simply wrong, since they, manifestly, violate lepton number conservation.
Concerning the standard model; It is obvious that the particles (almost all) have a sub structure. The discussion is about what is this sub-structure. The SM is build on around 30 parameters, which are giving the probability of reaction and creation of different particles. With so many parameters it is no surprise that some symmetries have been found. But, no quark or gluon have been detected, the conclusion, after so much effort, should be that they do not exist! There is also other fundamental questions like: What is a potential-charge? What is mass-energy? What is force-field? As long as no theory answers these questions, the understanding of fundamental physics is open to anyone.
Too many words, that are disconnected from their technical content and, therefore, don't mean anything. In the Standard Model of quarks, leptons and the Higgs and the gauge bosons that describe their interactions, NONE of the particles has a substructure and this has been measured in experiments at the LHC, for instance. All the particles of the Standard Model are points.
The symmetries of the Standard Model aren't random, either and the fact that one-particle states of quarks or gluons haven't been discovered is perfectly well understood-it's just a technical mathematical issue to prove it. The proof itself won't affect anything about the Standard Model itself, however. The question of quark confinement has been settled for a long time, through the measurement of the appropriate quantities in lattice simulations.
Potential-charge doesn't mean anything. Mass is one of the Lorentz invariants, that characterize any relativistic object, particles, also, and energy is the quantity that is conserved due to time translation invariance.
What forces are, is, also, known, as is how to describe them-all this is explained in detail in all textbooks on classical mechanics and classical electrodynamics, that are the limits of quantum field theory.
So it would be better, if people actually studied physics first.
Dear Stam,
1) quarks, gluons, gauge bosons et c. have never been detected, so how do you know anything of their structure?
2) theory of confinement; this is a very great commodity, in this way you don't need to explain why you haven't detected any of the quarks..
3) potential- charge; different signs on the charge change the direction of the force, why? The rest mass has some significant, in your eyes?
4) The force, I would like you to explain how the virtual photons can identify the direction and the velocity of a target charge, having a different direction and velocity than the source charge, and how the interaction from the target charge can find direction and velocity of the source charge and interact correctly?
5) As usual it is easy to explain something when you don't look into the details, or if you use a law including constants and parameters, without explaining why they have the value they have. It is not sufficient to say they have these values because
the experimental results are like this. That doesn't explain any fundamental physics.
@Stellan: I think that the linked paper is sufficient to draw a fundamental and real picture of the world of particles and nuclei.
I look forward to you scientific work.
One thought in this context: All the particles in SM would have their own specific matter. Do exist dozens of different types of matter or is material matter an uniform object formed from electrons and positron as elementary building blocks?
@Hans I can give you a hint of the future paper; saying that all particles (objects) are constructed by only one basic object (the daon). The particles (defined as particles following the Einstein mass law) are all constructed on the basis of electrons and positrons, which are following the Einstein mass law. The electrons/positrons are strongly deformed, adding mass and force, when they come close together. This is why they have not been recognized, as such, in the reaction products. The geometry of the constituents of a particle, is what produce the sub-structure.
Of course quarks, gluons (the gauge bosons of the strong interactions), as well as the gauge bosons of the electroweak interaction (the photon, the W and the Z) have been detected (the quarks since 1968, the gluons since 1979, the W since the 1950s indirectly and since 1983 more directly, the Z since 1972 indirectly and since 1983 more directly); single quark states and single gluon states haven't. There are many ways of detecting particles, so it isn't useful to focus on certain ways, that, simply, reflect history, not physics.
The theory of how gauge charges are confined explains confinement: if the string tension is non-zero, there's confinement, if it's zero there isn't. How to compute the string tension is explicitly known.
How to combine gauge charges is, also, well known. For U(1) gauge charges, of which the electric charge is an example, adding the charges is the answer; for other gauge groups the answer is, also, known. For SU(2) it's the same way angular momenta are added.
How electric and magnetic fields affect the motion of matter is, also, known. In QED the calculation is described in terms of the transition probabilities of the incoming and outgoing particles and the calculation is in all the textbooks.
The Standard Model provides a very detailed description and explanation-but if someone hasn't studied it, or has just read popular accounts, it's not surprising that the technical details have been missed.
What is surprising is that, at a time when the technical resources are readily available, e.g. http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/ho/SM.pdf
people, still, remain in ignorance.
There exist many more particles than electrons and positrons, that are, simply, the lightest, known, particles that carry electric charge and lepton number, hence are stable.
(Lepton number isn't exactly conserved, in the Standard Model, but the effect is so small, that in the usual processes it's conserved in practice.)
Dear Stam,
If you become too specialized in any specific area, you become completely indoctrinated so that you become impermeable to any logical critics. This is the same psychological process as for religion in general. As far as you still believe in the basic axioms, hypothesis,.. of your specialty, there is noting to do!
Unfortunately, the criticism proposed isn't logical and it's factually incorrect. That's why it's useless. The claims about charges and forces are wrong- e.g. about knowing how to combine charges, or whether quarks and gluons have been observed (and, in the final analysis-who cares? That's part of history, not part of physics). That one-quark states or one-gluon states can't be defined as asymptotic states doesn't mean that quarks and gluons haven't been-or can't be-measured. The reason is, precisely, because the rules that describe how multi quark and multi gluon states are defined are known-just like the rules that describe atoms and molecules are known.
I don't believe anything regarding the Standard Model-so talking about religion is pointless. There's nothing to believe in about how electric charges combine, nor how they're affected by electric and magnetic fields. Similarly there's nothing to believe in about how quarks are affected by gluons. There's a perfectly straightforward, impersonal, mathematical description-cf. the link-and this implies how experiments can be set up to check it and complete it.
It's not necessary to believe in axioms; just to deduce their logical consequences. It is possible to use other axioms; however this has consequences, that can be checked. That's only what matters.
Incidentally, much of the confusion results because the ``alternative'' axioms aren't explicitly spelled out. On the other hand, how to do the calculations in the Standard Model, is explicitly spelled out; so it would be more useful to learn how to do the calculations, before making claims that it is trivial to show they're wrong.
There are many ways of describing the effects the Standard Model describes-so there's no point in looking for alternative descriptions, unless they lead to``easier ways'' of calculation known quantities(require doing fewer calculations) AND they simplify the calculation of new ones. That's why it doesn't matter what they're called-what the new rules for calculating processes only matter.
This is the subject of current research, since computing multi particle processes, for backgrounds to experiments, is quite non-trivial. http://people.maths.ox.ac.uk/lmason/Tws/Bern.pdf
https://www.maths.tcd.ie/~britto/lecture-notes.pdf
It would be more useful to work on that, if one is interested in alternative methods of calculation.
The rules for calculating any process in the Standard Model take up, essentially, 1 A4 page, since the Lagrangian uniquely specifies the rules for computing any transition probability-any redundancy doesn't matter, since the transition probabilities don't depend on ``gauge fixing procedures''. And the Lagrangian is uniquely defined by the symmetries: global Lorentz invariance and local SU(3) x SU(2) x U(1) invariance, where the U(1) part is the weak hypercharge and how SU(2) x U(1) in fact is ``broken'' by the vacuum to U(1) of electromagnetism, through the Brout-Englert-Higgs mechanism. That's all that's needed to deduce everything else-in particular, that muons and tauons are not excited electrons. The family structure is specified by the consistency of the electroweak sector.
Classical physics is described by the solutions to the Euler-Lagrange equations, quantum effects by the transition probabilities from any one state to any other state.
That's what any alternative description has to improve on.
@Stam: The physicians have mostly only mathematics to found their theories. They calculate particles (and also dark matter, black holes etc.) which are invented by theories. There arise more and more particles by theoretical need which are never observed.
Do the theoreticians have no better skills to declare the reality? Par example by analysis and synthesis like the chemists have done to develop the alchemy to the exact science chemistry.
You have never observed a divided elementary charge. To declare the charges of particles and nuclei caused by the elementary charges of electrons and positrons is logical.
Theoretical physics move increasingly further away from facts and experimental results. The whole herd of physicians follows the strange ideas of unknown particles and divided charges.
The next step in theoretical physics will be to referring to the bible.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Philosophy
- Philosophy Of Science
- Reasoning