One can roughly estimate the size of an elementary particle in terms of it's deBroglie wave length. For example the graviton of mass MP has the smallest     deBroglie wavelength LP= ħ / (MP c), which is approximately 1.6 x 10-35 M. A particle which is lighter than this will have a larger size.

One has to be careful while talking about size in a quantum world because position and momentum does not commute [ x, px ]  ≈ i ħ. This means that uncertainty in position depends on the uncertainty in momentum. It is not therefore possible to define size of an elementary particle in the "classical" sense.

The reason why a size or volume could never be clearly determined for charged particles behaving point-like, and that have consequently come to be considered elementary, is that the more energetic non-destructive mutual collisions are between 2 electrons, for example, the closer they come to each other's "point-like center" before rebounding, even during head-on collisions, without having reached any unbreachable limit at some distance from their center.  

This was established in in second half of the 1960's at the SLAC facility.

The situation is different for protons and neutrons however, that also belong to the same submicroscopic level of physical reality, and for which definite volumes have conclusively been measured, which hinted early on at the possibility that they could have an internal structure. In their case, the rebounding patterns of all incoming particles revealed that they cannot any come closer to their center than a clearly measurable distance of the order of 10E-15 m, a limit that remains unbreachable below a very precise energy level of the incoming particles.

Dear Biswajoy and Andre,

What you have said are completely true within the domain of present formulations of quantum physics and experimental limits. However, I am very much in favor of a deterministic theory of physical processes and I think sooner or later we will be able to formulate physics in terms of geometry and topology in which the wave and particle aspects of quantum objects can exist together. Actually, the most dominant inverse square laws in physics can be derived by proposing a simple relationship between the mass and the size of an elementary particle. And, furthermore, I think Mother Nature has a negative mass. 

Kind regards,

Vu.

Dear Vu

Like you, I aways believed that determinism was the way to go at the fundamental level and that any theory should rest exclusively on experimentally obtained information.

To my knowledge, only two interaction laws have been experimentally identified at this level, the electric Coulomb inverse square law and the magnetic inverse cube law being at play simmultaneously between charged elementary electromagnetic particles.

I think that not enough attention has been given to the magnetic inverse cube interaction law, which seems to me as important as the electric inverse square law.

Regarding formulation in terms of geometry and topology that could describe both particle and wave behavior of quantum objects at the same time, maybe you would be interested in this recently published paper:

http://www.omicsonline.com/open-access/on-de-broglies-doubleparticle-photon-hypothesis-2090-0902-1000153.php?aid=70373

There is a relationship between particle mass and particle size, but it also involves the momentum of the particle. Since momentum depends on one's frame of reference, so does particle size. The de Broglie wavelength is given by h/p where h is Planck's constant and p is the particle's momentum. A particle of low mass moving at low speed will therefore be larger than a particle of high mass moving at high speed. There are situations in which elementary particles will not be microscopic - see the article linked to below for an example of an important case when the particles would be about 0.1mm in size.

Technical Report The annihilation of gravitationally trapped neutrinos

Dear Andre and Robin,

Andre: I've read your paper with interest. However, your approach is quite different from mine in the sense that I'm looking for more direct relationship between physical entities and mathematical objects in normal space so we can build a model in terms of geometry and topology. To my opinion, our knowledge about nature is still very limited therefore it's normal if we approach differently. Hope we will meet somewhere at the end.

Robin: Your report is very technical, however, I think we are looking for a mathematical relationship between masses and sizes of elementary particles, like m=f(r). I think we should start with a basic model and check it by using available data, like Planck's and others. My problem is I don't know if there are data available.

Kind regards,

Vu.

I don't understand why so many people are hell-bent on finding a deterministic theory to explain quantum mechanics.  One does not exist!  Get over it!  Personally, I find the absence of such a theory comforting since it allows for free-will.  A fundamental deterministic theory would destroy the possibility of free-will which is something I can't accept.

As for the size of fundamental particles, the question makes no sense.  They are particle-waves.  We can talk about the wavelength as a relevant length-scale but I don't think this is what you mean when you say "size."  It is absurd to think that at some very small length-scale fundamental particles look like little balls (or any other geometric shape).

Embrace the probabilistic nature of reality.  The sooner you do, the sooner it will make sense.

Dear Vu,

The de Broglie hypothesis has been verified quite unambiguously in diffraction experiments for a variety of elementary particles and, more recently, also for composite particles (buckyballs etc).I don't see why you want to reject de Broglie's matter waves when they are so clearly supported by evidence and derivable from quantum mechanics.

Jeremy says it makes no sense to talk of the size of a particle but we know that white dwarves and neutron stars are supported by the repulsion that arises between closely separated fermions. Certainly, there's no problem discussing things like the radius, surface gravity or density of such stars, and we can easily calculate the mean volume occupied by the fermions when they are gravitationally confined in this way - and hence deduce their average size under those circumstances.

Dear Vu B Ho, Andre Michaud & others,

 - In my deep confidence, your question has a definitely positive answer. Moreover, I think it has succeeded me to open the mentioned direct link between size and mass, as well as with many individual properties of elementary particles.

 - I am very welcome also the remark of Mr. Andre on the role of magnetic cube inverse force (it becomes the same with the mystical nuclear force). All about this you can find from here, if you have enough time: 

http://vixra.org/author/george_kirakosyan

Dear Vu

I also hope we meet somewhere at the end.

Our aims seem a little different however. My own aim is to understand how the universe as we know it can be built from the most fundamental and stable building blocks that have been experimentally identified.

These stable, massive, charged and point-like behaving building blocks of all mater in the periodic table of elements are very few: the electron, the up quark and the down quark. Two more stable and point-like behaving particles have also been identified, which are the positron and the photon, which the paper you read describes within a mandatory expanded space geometry. Point-like behaving means that all data reveal that they are not made of smaller particles. Related descriptions of all other building blocks are also available and the manner in which they can interact seems sufficient to explain all that we have found to physically exist.

Contrary to you, I think that our knowledge about these building blocks is sufficient to proceed and the end result of my analysis is the 3-spaces model, which may or may not be complete and may or may not be in the right direction.

Of course, other models are possible, possibly yours also. What is important is that eventually models converge towards the ultimate model that will describe the only existing physical reality that exists out there and that we are part of.

George,

I had a look at your paper titled: "Modeling the Electron as a Stable Quantum wave-vortex:  Interpretation α≈1/137 as a wave constant". I think your conclusion about alpha is the same as mine.

I found that alpha is the ratio of the transverse amplitude of the electromagnetic oscillation over the classical longitudinal amplitude associated to electromagnetic energy moving at the speed of light.

Transverse ampliture A_transverse=(lambda alpha)/(2 pi)

Traditional Longitudinal amplitude A_long=lambda/(2 pi)

You can find the derivation in this paper:

http://www.gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Essays/View/2257

Jeremy,

We are not hell-bent on finding a deterministic theory to explain quantum mechanics. I think that most us know it is impossible.

We are trying to find a theory that explains objective physical reality. What can be wrong with this?

"We have no adequate and consistent theory that supports to speak of the size of elementary particles" said Christian, forgetting all about quantum mechanics, its many successes and the fact that the square of the wave-function is proportional to the probability of finding an elementary particle.

When I divide a volume by an integer I find that the result is also a volume, not a length.

Christian, QM is responsible for the fermionic repulsion (3-dimensional degeneracy pressure) that resists gravity in white dwarves and neutron stars. There are three dimensions to space, and the time-independent Schrodinger equation can handle them all, providing a 3-D probability map from which the size of the particle can be assessed.

Hi All,

I agree with Andre that we don't abandon quantum mechanics and we have never attempted to deny de Broglie's wavelength. We just want to search for a model in terms of geometry and topology to see if quantum mechanics can be explained in a deterministic way. If you have read my works you could see that de Broglie's wavelength and Planck's quantum of energy in fact can be expressed in terms of differential geometry and classical dynamics. Of course, we all have our own rights to keep hold of our own beliefs. If you believe that the quantum mechanics is the ultimate theory of all then it is the ultimate theory to you, but other people may think otherwise. A scientist should always be open-minded and I think it causes no harm to adventure to progress. (It would be boring to just accept and apply what have been done!). For your convenience, I attach some of my works that have been posted on RG.

Kind regards,

Vu.

Article On the Principle of Least Action

Working Paper A TEMPORAL DYNAMICS: A GENERALISED NEWTONIAN AND WAVE MECHANICS

Working Paper ON THE STATIONARY ORBITS OF A HYDROGEN-LIKE ATOM

Working Paper ON REPULSIVE GRAVITY

Working Paper A THEORY OF TEMPORAL RELATIVITY

No-the two are independent quantities, if gravitational effects can be neglected. In general relativity-classical gravity-they are related by a bound, since a given mass, confined in a region below a certain size, describes a causally disconnected region of spacetime. But this relation doesn't have anything to do with whether the object is ``elementary'' or composite''. In this context, however, it is possible to prove a positive mass theorem that describes the relation  between spacetime curvature and mass.  

Yes, our paper "Quintessential Nature of the Fine-Structure Constant" shows an equation relating the proton-electron mass ratio, their respective radii and the fine-structure constant.

Dear Stam,

I think they should be related, otherwise the universe would be very different from what have been observed, because in such situation an atom would have any size. Furthermore, I think the empty space-time itself is a massless elementary particle that is needed to be created first. 

Kind regards,

Vu.

 Dear Michael,

I have read your paper. It is a very nice relationship between those of a proton and an electron. But, how can we establish a relationship between the mass m and the size r of a single elementary particle in the from m=f(r)? I don't know if we have relevant data to establish such relationship. 

Kind regards,

Vu.

Dear Christian,

You are perfectly correct when you say an atom is not an elementary particle. However, I think the size of an atom depends very much on the size of those elementary particles that the atom is composed of.

Kind regards,

Vu.

No-the size of an atom depends on the interactions of its constituents-and they can be points. The size of the hydrogen atom, given by the Bohr radius,  is non-zero, even though the electron and the proton, in the approximation where electromagnetic interactions only are relevant and the quark properties of the proton are not, are points. 

Christian

I fully agree with the way you understand "point-like behavior" of truly elementary particles, such as electron and muon.

Even if the earth and moon have to be represented as if their total masses was concentrated at their "point-like" centers of mass when calculating their orbit relation, we fully understand that they are not "points" in the mathematical sense.

Dear Christian and Andre,

Christian, I am sorry for the misunderstanding. When I say size I do mean mass because in my mind they are always related. Of course you may think otherwise. 

Andre, instead of introducing new spaces for the electromagnetic field I have tried to introduce a time component for both the electric and magnetic fields. If you are interested please have a look at my work ON THE WAVE-PARTICLE DUALITY IN QUANTUM PHYSICS that I've just posted on RG.

Kind regards,

Vu.

Working Paper ON THE WAVE-PARTICLE DUALITY IN QUANTUM PHYSICS

Dear Christian,

I have read your paper. It is nicely written. I think physics is a study of those that can be observed in real space-time and phase space is no more than a mathematical method. As far as physical theories are concerned, nothing physicists can do but to stick to the appearance of objects in space-time as you said. An image can be deceived, but what form the image are real, and that's what physicists want to find out. As I said before, I can use my temporal dynamics to show that the expansion of the observable universe is an illusion. However, I agree with you that we will never be able to give a final answer.

I checked my file and it is OK.

Kind regards,

Vu.

Dear Stam,

I agree with you that atoms can be considered as points, even the solar system, depending on the scale. I am working on a simple model for a possible relationship between the size and the mass of an elementary particle. According to my model there is an elementary particle that has the maximum mass. Do you know which particle in all elementary particles that have been discovered that has the maximum mass?

Kind regards,

Vu.

Dear Vu

Your paper sent me into deep reflexion, trying to see how convergence could be identified with my own understanding.

You mention "We also discuss the possibility to interpret the waveparticle duality in quantum physics by considering a wave equation in quantum mechanics as a constraint to the position of a particle, where the motion of the particle is considered to be in a confined geometry"

Interestingly, as I was discussing with Francois Leyvraz recently in another thread, he was expressing a similar idea:

https://www.researchgate.net/post/What_happens_with_two_identical_fermions_identically_polarized_whose_paths_cross_one_another/8

It seems undeniable that quantum mechanics involves the notion of a particle being manifested as a particle and as a wave. However, in QM the localized particle state comes into being only when the quantum is immobilized, that is, in a state where the wave aspect is totally absent. Conversely, if the quantum starts moving at any velocity, however low, its "particle aspect" instantly disappears to be replaced by the wave packet aspect of the quantum. So it would seem that in quantum mechanics, the wave-particle behavior cannot involve simultaneity by structure.

Like you, F. Leyvraz thinks however that even if the particle's trajectory cannot really be precisely localized with the wave function, its wave aspect could nevertheless be constrained sufficiently to amount to an approximate trajectory, that could possibly explain the precise trajectories of charged particles in high energy accelerators, such as the LHC or SLAC. Others disagree, but it is worth exploring all the same.

In classical mechanics, particles are permanently localized with no wave aspect, and all their trajectories are permanently subject to Newton's acceleration equation (your equation 1), that you rightfully equate to the Coulomb equation showing that the Coulomb force applies in the same manner for the Bohr model hydrogen rest state if the electron is considered permanently localized. I also notice that you rightfully equate the Lorentz force equation with Newton's acceleration equation (your equation 14).

So we agree on this point since I also found that they all are other forms of Newton's accelertion equation. I also found that the gravitational equation is the same as ma, and that in fact all classical force equation can be derived from each other and consequently all amount to the same force acting as a function of the inverse square of the distance between massive particles. If interested, the derivations are completely layed out here:

http://www.ijerd.com/paper/vol6-issue6/F06062734.pdf

Your paper made me remember why I discarded classical mechanics and quantum mechanics as references in trying to understand the fundamental level.

From my understanding of electromagnetism, it had become clear to me at some point that particles such as the electron could only be made of discrete amounts of kinetic energy that local circumstances constrained into remaining localized while locally transversally electromagnetically oscillating at the frequency related to the amount of kinetic energy involved.

This transverse electromagnetic oscillation, from my perspective, is what constitutes the wave behavior of the electron, and its omnidirectinal inertia constitutes its mass, which is detectable longitudinally as well as transversally in  experiments such as those carried out by Walter Kaufmann at the beginning of the 20th century.

To me this means that the particle behavior and the wave behavior are permanent characteristics of the electron, and "are in continuous and simultaneous action", which is contrary by structure to QM, where they can be present only in alternance. Since wave behavior is inexistant in classical mechanics, then this is contrary to classical mechanics also.

I tried to see if your derivation led to a description of the electron as having simultaneous wave and particle behavior, but I could not say. I'd have to dig my old Kaplan out of my library conclude since I did not need tensors in my explorations and so am little used to resolving the notation. Maybe I will.

Anyhow, this need for both particle behavior and wave behavior to be permanent and simultaneous is what led me to expand the space geometry in search for the solution I found. If your solution does that (describing that the electron displays both particle and wave behavior as being permanent and simultaneous), then I would say that our solutions converge.

I just read the few posts that were added after yours, and contrary to Christian's opinion, I am convinced that we will eventually get to a final answer.

Regarding which "stable" elementary particle has the maximum mass ever experimentally discovered, the answer is quite easy. it is the down quark whose mass has been shown to lie between 3 to 9 MeV/c2, that is, a maximum of 8.198443779E-30 kg.

Ref: CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics. 84th Edition 2003-2004, CRC Press, New York, page 11-6).

I specified "stable", because all more massive partons detected in high energy accelerators are only hyperenergized temporary states that instantly decay into one or other of the stable set: electron, positron, proton, neutron, the latter 2 being complex stable systems made up of "stable" elementary up and down quarks as their only inner scatterable components. In my opinion, since only the stable set is used to build all atoms in existence which in turn makes all matter in the the universe, only the stable set needs be considered in our search for the final answer.

Dear Andre,

I am not a quark believer and I am afraid that if they keep doing that way then sooner or later they will run out of fractions and colors. And the spectrum of masses of elementary particles may not be that simple. For a reference, I attach a link below. 

http://www.slac.stanford.edu/cgi-wrap/getdoc/slac-pub-12528.pdf

Kind regards,

Vu.

Faith doesn't make sense in any context of physics. The number of ``colors'' is 3 in the Standard Model, because the quarks have, also, electromagnetic and weak interactions and consistency of these implies constraints on the number of colors and on the electric charges of the quarks, that can't be arbitrary, either: they're related in a quite specific way to the electric charges of the leptons.

How to compute the spectrum of hadrons from the dynamics of quarks and gluons, as described by QCD, is known and, though it's a hard problem computationally, the difficulties involve issues of algorithms and coding, not physics as such-which enters the picture when trying to test the approximations involved in the algorithms.

There isn't any reason for any physical property to conform to anyone's prejudice, like ``simplicity'', that's not relevant for physics. What matters is consistency of calculation and experiment-and for quarks both are satisfied. 

Dear Vu

I note first that this paper was written in 2007. I also note that Martin Perl makes no distinction between results obtained via non-desctructive scattering and destructive scattering, which makes him mix all scattering results in the same mass sequence.

Maybe you have not come across this information, but non-destructive scattering was used only for a short period of time at the SLAC facility, right after it came online in 1966. SLAC was the first accelerator able to acclerate electron to sufficient energy to penetrate nucleon volumes that remained unbreachable by less energetic electrons.

These energetic enough electron beams penetrated inside target protons and neutrons and were scattered away by point-like behaving "objects" inside the nucleons. Careful study of the scattering patterns and individual trajectories of the deflected or rebounded electrons, some of which having been directly back scattered in a highly inelastic manner, led to the discovery that two different types of massive particles inside nucleons were charged in opposition and were only marginally more massive than electrons. The positive component was named "up quark", possessing 2/3 of the charge of the positron, and the negative component was named "down quark", possessing 1/3 of the charge of the electron. No other scatterable inner components were ever discovered inside nucleons via non-destructive scattering.

A series of papers were issued at the SLAC facility to account for this discovery, the reference I give at the end is one of them.

Finding nothing else inside nucleons, experimentalists at SLAC and other acelerators since, started using more and more energetic electron and positron beams, entering the destructive scattering range. In this range, nucleons are destroyed by having the inner up and down quarks scattered against with such energy that they convert to higher energy states that immediately congeal as fleetingly existing partons with momentary higher masses, that immediately decay into electrons and positrons, and when the incoming beams are high enough, they produce fleetingly existing particles even more massive than nucleons. This is what they have been doing ever since, including at CERN with the LHC.

The first fleetingly massive partons that seemed to fit with the QCD theory that was being concocted to explain nucleons were then also named "quarks" of various flavors, instantly creating confusion with respect to the non-destructively scatterable up and down quarks by using the same term (quark) with other qualifyer (top, bottom, etc).

Martin Perl is a believer in QCD matching physical reality as evidenced immediately from the Abstract, so all his thinking is grounded on the deep belief in this theory being the final explanation for nucleons, even though only the up and down quarks can be non-destructively scattered against inside nucleons.

Quantum Chromodynamics is a theory meant to describe the internal structure of protons and neutrons, adopting the "virtual particles" trend set by Feynman for Quantum Electrodynamics, also makes use of virtual particles (gluons) plus varius so called "colors" to represent the interactions, to this day not fully understood, between the scatterable up and down quarks making up nucleons.

It must be made clear here, that even after 50 years of existence of this theory, no one has been able to formulate the equations of QCD with sufficient precision to correctly describe a nucleon, which was its stated justification when it was proposed. But this has not prevented its being flaunted in physics courses as the only possible theory that can describe nucleons.

The insuficiencies of QCD are clearly layed out in an Scientific American article in the July 1999 issue by Rith and Schäfer, titled "The Mystery of Nucleon Spin".

I fully relate to your scepticism regarding quarks in general, given that nobody in the community seems to be aware any more of the details of the experimental history of up and down quarks discoveries with respect to non-destructive versus destructive scattering.

If interested, I invite you to dig up the other papers from SLAC that were written in the 1966 to 1970 period concerning the 1966-1968 period. You will see what I mean.

http://www.slac.stanford.edu/pubs/slacpubs/0500/slac-pub-0650.pdf

Aleš

We know that QCD is not a complete theory, but QED is mathematically sound.

We know for certain that two different interaction laws govern mutual interactions between charged elementary electromagnetic particles. They are the very well known Coulomb law that governs mutual electric interaction between all charged particles as a function of the inverse square of the distance separating any pair of such particles, and the less familiar magnetic interaction law that governs the mutual magnetic interaction between the same particles as a function of the inverse cube of the distance separating them.

Two fundamental hypotheses have been defined as to how these two interaction laws should be defined. Almost exclusively the inverse square law in fact, since few people seem very aware of the importance of the inverse cube magnetic interaction law.

The first hypothesis was to consider them as being continuously progressive at the infinitesimal level, while the second hypothesis was to consider them discontinuous.

The continuously progressive hypothesis is immediately intuitive and was considered the only possibility until Richard Feynman introduced the notion of quantization by means of "virtual photons" in 1949, which allowed using the simpler static Lagrangian calculation method instead of the more elaborate Hamiltonian method to account for interactions between elementary particles.

These "virtual photons", that bundle together the Coulomb force and the amount of kinetic energy induced at the particular intensity of the force applicable to each distance considered into individual "virtual exchange quanta", which were meant to represent the electric interaction between elementary particles as an exchange of strings of separate mathematical virtual photons.

This method allowed dealing with the electric interaction between charged particles as if the interaction was quantized, being represented by series of instantaneous momentary states, as if frozen in time, as small as required, that would be equivalent at the limit to continuous interaction.

The discontinuity idea was soon extended to all interaction laws and even to time and space in some physics circles, which eventually caused the hypothesis that the electric and magnetic forces and even time and space could be discontinuous, that is quantized, at the infinitesimal level, to be adopted by many as completely superseding the continuously progressive hypothesis.

Actually, choosing discontinuity or continuity as characterizing interactions at the infinitesimal level while excluding the other possibility is a philosophical choice that completely determines how the individual will analyze the nature of the fundamental level of physical reality, to the point that the idea of continuously progressive application of force at the infinitesimal level appears unnatural to those choosing discontinuity, and the reverse for those choosing continuity.

But there seems to be no reason to reject either method since both hypotheses have qualities and allow possibilities that the other method does not provide; ease of calculation of stable states in the case of discontinuity with QED and ease of motion representation in the case of continuous progression.

Care must be taken, however, not to confuse Feynman's "virtual exchange photons" with real electromagnetic photons, because contrary to "virtual photons", real electromagnetic photons do not bundle together the Coulomb force and the kinetic energy induced by the force, and are only made up of kinetic energy.

Nobody understands how the Coulomb force operates other than that it verifiably induces kinetic energy in charged particles as a function of the inverse square of the distance between them. This kinetic energy is translationally directed towards the other particle in case of opposite sign particles and translationally directed away from the other particle incase of same sign particles.

As strange as this may sound, this is all we know experimentwise about the Coulomb force. The rest is speculation and hypotheses. But it seems to be enough to build the whole universe from the already know set of point-like behaving elementary particles of the stable set.

Aleš

In my view, what is missing in the mix is coherent integration of the inverse cube magnetic interaction between electromagnetic (thus charged) elementary particles.

QED can describe stable states, but as you said it does not explain them. I did some calculations with the inverse cube interaction that lead me to believe that all stable states can be explained by integrating the magnetic inverse cube interaction. So it seems to me that this is the way to go. Eventually, others will dig in this direction and should confirm.

Regarding gravity, did you never find it strange that Newtonian celestial mechanics works only if the interaction obeys the inverse square interaction law while the Coulomb law is also known to obey the very same law, with nobody apparently making the connection, except for immediately rejecting the possibility?

To my knowledge, It obeys the inverse square law in all cases when relative angular parallax makes large masses appear point-like with respect to each other, and can't possibly obey the inverse square law when relative angular parallax makes large masses appear to have volume with respect to each other, if the large masses are assumed as being unit massive entities, but even in their case the inverse square rule is obeyed between the charged elementary particles making these large masses up, and all stellar masses are made exclusively of the charged elementary particles of the stable set.

This is something that Newton could not know about and that Einstein could not take into account since the elementary point-like behaving scatterable sub components of nucleons were not yet known at the time.

We know better now.

Hi All,

I understand that due to uncertainty, in other words our ignorance, science has become more like a religion where even physicists can be brainwashed ( Sorry Stam, it seems you are an example, but you can say the same to me if you want). To my opinion, the so-called standard models are ugly, patched up, therefore can not be considered as fundamental, including its mathematical formulations. Why don't they just say that the vaguely imagined things called quarks don't exist and move on, instead of telling us that that is due to color confinement. I wonder whether quarks confine to save themselves or to save their inventors. They are entirely entitled to put forward a set of axioms to construct a mathematical theory, sound and solid, but physics is a different domain of reality. An interesting question that I want to raise is what after quarks? The same pattern will repeat itself or the end of physics at the quark level? What standard is that?

Kind regards,

Vu.

Opinions don't matter-calculations and experiments do. Experimentally, hadrons, strongly interacting particles, that carry net color, the charge of the strong force, haven't been observed. However, under certain conditions of density and temperature, such hadronic states are expected-and have been observed-that's what ``quark-gluon plasma'' means. Quantum chromodynamics explains this fact  (in particular through lattice calculations) and provides the framework for computing the consequences, among others, the properties of strongly interacting particles that have been observed. That's what matters, not personal opinions.

Up to the energies explored to date, hadrons can be described in terms of quarks and gluons and it's possible to quantify what it would mean, were quarks bound states-and this structure hasn't been observed-this is what it means that quarks aren't bound states.  It doesn't matter, what form any structure may take-what does matter is that it's possible to compute what it would imply for experiments. And this has been done. But it isn't necessary for the consistency of the Standard Model, nor a prediction-it's the description of a possible extension.

Aleš

Of course relativistic effect are a fact and all relativistic effets need to be taken into account, and this is the point really, because SR and GR do not take all existing relativistic effects into account. More has been found after they were developped.

I won't be trying to convince you of anything, but the fact that nucleons' inner structure is made of only charged up and down quarks with masses only marginally larger than that of the electron means that most of the mass of nucleons is relativistic in nature, plus the added fact that these charged quarks electrically interact with surrounding charged up and down quarks of other nuclei, and all other electrically charged particles in the universe in fact, makes it impossible for nucleons to have invariant masses.

Since SR and GR are squarely sitting on the concept that nucleon masses are invariant, then they are incomplete and need to be refocused to account for this additional relativistic knowledge.

When correctly applied to theory, the inverse square la is not invalidated at any level by relativistic effects.

My view is that it is impossible that nobody else would eventually light up on this fact at some point and start the ball rolling again.

All I can assert is that the future will tell.

Dear Ales, Christian, Stam,

My doing research in physics and in science in general is out of curiosity and nothing else, but we all know that curiosity is a never ending story, therefore it is very hard for me to accept seriously any theory at all, let alone being forced to do so. I have never objected to the quark theory. I just don't like seeing people being forced to accept it by teaching at school as a fundamental theory in the status of Newton's theory, while nothing have been discovered yet and nothing those speculative quarks can do for you, except for their representation of a fictional story by James Joyce so people can have good drink. The quark idea was proposed by the fact that from experiments the proton showed to contain point-like objects, but this is because the proton was assumed to be a spherical object. What about if the proton had the shape of a starfish, for example? Ales, why the letter s in your name has an accent?

Kind regards,

Vu.

That the proton is a bound state of quarks doesn't have anything to do with its shape being, supposedly, spherical-that's wrong. Theories don't have ``status''-that's sociology; their technical content matters-that's what describes the calculations and experiments that make sense. So one can learn to calculate the shape of the proton, just like that of any bound state.  Nobody's forced to learn particle physics. But the technical content of particle physics, or any scientific theory,  doesn't make sense as a subject of philosophical debate. That's meaningless. 

Dear Ales and Stam,

Ales, when I asked you that question, besides my ignorance of your language, I wanted to make the point that " the letter s with an accent" is a wrong description of what supposed to be. Even a simple letter can be mutated. If elementary particles are produced to form structures as required then it is possible to speculate that besides being provided with physical properties they could be "armed" with "spikes" to protect themselves from being smashed. Sound extreme, but they're smart, aren't they?

Stam, look a bit closer then you can see that the quark theory is a carbon copy of Rutherford's model with a colorful description. It's up to you to understand what I mean by saying it is a colorful description. Stam, when I say "forced" I mean "brainwashed".

Kind regards,

Vu.

If we believe that things which cannot be seen do not exist, the wind must be an illusion.

Charles,

"Lack of understanding is always due to lack of intelligence or lack of effort."

Or lack of sufficient data when conclusions are drawn, and lack of re-synthesising after more data has been gathered.

So everything seems to hang on the extent of the data set being considered then.

From the undeniable data set available to Newton for example, it seems obvious to me that it would have been impossible for him to understand how or why c was a limit velocity even if had been shown experimental proof.

So consideration of more undeniable data may be required for understanding to set in at the point we are at even now in our data gathering.  

Dear Ales,

After having a bit of fun, seriously I think elementary particles may possess topological characteristics that can only manifest at the quantum level. They can change their physical structures in a way that we are unable to detect. This may be due to our limited ability at the quantum level, even though we can observe them statistically at the macroscopic scale as you observed. I don't deny the possible existence of quarks, I just want to say that their appearance may be the result of a topological structure of the proton. It may be more subtle than a sphere with handles in topology. I'm working on the possibility to represent the hydrogen as a topological bordism relation but the dynamics of the system seems almost impossible to derive.

Kind regards,

Vu.

Dear All,

I would like to know what would it be if we put ourselves aside? Trees are still trees and quantum objects are still quantum objects, it doesn't matter whether they are observable or not. Or am I completely wrong? I think a mathematical model is a tool, not a story, so why is it a fiction? Or am I completely wrong as well?

Kind regards,

Vu.

Dear Christian and Ales,

I do recognise your intention, however, my understanding of what a mathematical model is is still a bit different. Perhaps we run out of words as Christian said. The link below might be helpful. As I said somewhere before, to propose a principle is very much the same as to sweep the unknown under the carpet. Or am I wrong again?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_model

Kind regards,

Vu. 

He did not say concealing knowledge. He said concealing unknown.

Dear Igor and Christian,

I don't know what to say other than to totally agree with Igor. After a long search but I still have not received any information that I needed, so I decided to post my simple and suggestive model that describes a possible relationship between the size and the mass of an elementary particle. I do realise that it may be meaningless due to the uncertainty principle, but it is still a good try after all.

Kind regards,

Vu.

Research Proposal ON THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE MASS AND THE SIZE OF AN ELEM...

On my side, I found a relationship between the "size" of the charge and the mass of the stable point-like behaving stable set: electron or positron (unit charge), up quark (2/3 charge) and down quark (1/3 charge).

It is rather complex to explain, but the values obtained for the up and down quark fall right into the possible mass ranges experimentally determined for the up and down quark, which are between 1.5 to 5 MeV/c^2 for the up quark and 3 to 9 MeV/c^2 for the down quark (Ref: CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics. 84th Edition 2003-2004, CRC Press, New York. 2003).

The values obtained, shown in Table 1 of the cited paper are 0.511 MeV/c^2 for the electron (1 full charge), 1.1457 MeV/c^2 for the up quark (2/3 charge) and 4.5989 MeV/c^2 for the down quark.

http://www.ijerd.com/paper/vol7-issue9/E0709029053.pdf

an Inverse relation, in fact.

Questions behind the question:

What means elementary particle? Electrons, quarks, neutrinos?

A point-like particle has zero size and zero volume - therefore infinite density.

Your question should be theoretically answered. But there are many contradictions in theory resp. answers.

Dear Andre and Hans-G,

I always regard the concept of a point-like particle as a mere mathematical description, but not physical. I think we have encountered with the problem of how to perceive infinity, even in mathematics. The concept of infinity is purely mathematical and it is almost impossible to avoid using it whenever we want to construct a mathematical model to describe the physical world. Perhaps, we need to change the current format of mathematics or build a new one without using the concept of infinity. Mathematics is the problem, not physics. Or we simply don't have the ability to perceive infinity at all.

At the moment I don't believe in the quark model, therefore whenever I refer to an elementary particle I simply mean an electron or a proton or a neutron or a photon or even the massless space itself and so on. Whether these so-called elementary particles are in fact particles at all is another problem.

Kind regards,

Vu.

Dear Ales,

Now I know that you are an engineer so I can tell you that the purpose of measuring a particle size is to determine what size of the bearing ball from the stock is needed for the required engine. If you looked at my calculations you would have noted that the size of a photon and the size of an electron are similar and this may have something to do with why atoms made up of electrons absorb photons smoothly. It is a guess but I guess that that is a good guess. Another guess of mine is the boundary of a particle at the quantum level may not be clearly defined, all things are connected according to a bordism relation, which is what I am trying to work on. 

Mother Nature is way smarter than we may have thought. I don't know if She made any money from those wonderful things that She had invented, but I am sure you do.

Kind regards,

Vu.

Dear Andre,

After examining your work, and other works on the quark theory, one thing that makes me feel uncomfortable with it is that the model is based on a simple algebraic pattern. In physics, Newton’s laws are fundamental because they can be applied universally. How far can you apply the Eightfold Way of the quark model to make it standard? On the other hand, if we follow Einstein’s General Way of describing Nature then mass should be expressed as a geometrical object and charge as a topological characteristic, like Euler characteristic, which depends on the topological structure of an elementary particle and cannot be divided arbitrarily. You just can’t divide a topological characteristic of a topological structure into fractions.

I have a curious question that I’d like to ask you. If you keep smashing rocks randomly then sooner or later you will find a piece that fits the required size, how significant is that piece of rock? Unless it's a gem, if you are lucky. 

Kind regards,

Vu.

Dear Vu

You have a truly searching mind. That's what is needed for our knowledge base to move forward.

You mention my work and other works on the quark theory. I assume you are talking about Quantum Chromodynamics (QCD) in reference to these "other works". QCD is a model that was set up so that the SLAC experimental results would remain in harmony with non-deterministic trend that was initiated by Heisenberg and Bohr in the 1920's.

My personal approach is different. Starting from scratch, I was trying to fit the SLAC experimental results in a model that would remain in harmony with the interaction laws that have been proven to exist between charged particles, which are the Coulomb law (inverse square) well documented and proven to apply between all point-like behaving charged elementary particles, and the inverse cube magnetic interaction law that just was proven out of any doubt (in 2014) between the magnetic aspects of the same electrically charged particles.

This directly led to Maxwell's equations and the de Broglie double particle photon and eventually to a clear mechanics of electron-positron pair decoupling from single photons of sufficient energy, and to a clear mechanics of nucleon production from accelerating triads of electrons and positrons that coherently results in them having their unstressed characteristics to be warped into those of down and up quarks that were experimentally verified at SLAC, which are the two possible fractional charges, and slightly increased rest masses.

By opposition, the QCD model proposes no explanation for the existence of up and down quarks.

Both models however are only mathematical hypotheses. The up and down quarks on their side have been experimentally knocked against by energetic enough electron and positron beams, so they seem to really physically exist. You have to decide for yourself if you conclude that it is possible to verify physical existence of elementary particles by mutual scattering.

If you conclude that this is not possible, then we may discuss for 10 years without finding common ground. If you conclude that it is possible, then if you find that either model does not satisfactorily account for the experimental results, then you can try to elaborate a more satisfactory solution, which is what I tried to do, as I found QCD not to be satisfactory from my perspective.

Now to your question.

If you keep smashing a rock randomly into smaller pieces, any rock whatsoever, at some point, the pieces will eventually reach a level which is stable below a specific energy level, the molecular level. You will have reached a level where the various molecules making up the rock can be chemically identified.

Adding more energy to split the molecules, you will reach a new meta-stable level, the atomic level where the various atoms making up the molecules can be identified. All of then can be found in the periodic table.

If you add still more energy, you will cause the electrons to be stripped from the atoms, leading to various ionization levels up to plasma state where all electrons have been stripped from the atomic nuclei.

If you ad still more energy, you will cause the nuclei to split into their components protons and neutrons.

If you add still more energy, you will enter the protons and neutrons and see the up and down quarks that make up their inner scatterable structure.

If you add still more energy, you will destroy the nucleons by having one of the inner quarks converted to energy by being smashed against with sufficient force by either an up or down quark from an incoming proton, or an incoming electron or positron, resulting in the liberation of sufficient energy for it to fleetingly re-congeal into meta-stable more massive particles that almost instantly decay into the stable set of particles, which are electron, protons and neutron of which all atoms are made.

From my perspective, this is what happens if you start splitting a rock and don't stop untill the constituting protons or neutrons are split.

Mass, it appears,  is a discrete entity whereas "size" is not. Mass does not depend on the coordinate system we employ but size does and an entity with size can have many sizes and shapes depending on how "size" is interrogated - for example, by scattering experiments. "Size" is connected to the domain of influence that the entity exerts on neighboring entities of similar indefinite size. Thus "size" is a field parameter depending on the field which the particle exerts its inlfuence. For a particle with mass it is the gravitational field; for a particle with electeric charge it is the elecromagentic field. Thus the "size" of a particle depends on how you frame the question and the means you employ to "measure" size.

Dear Andre and Dwight,

Andre, thanks for your detailed explanations. I can see that your works on the quark model have some degrees of significance. A true theory of classical charges must embrace some forms of classical electromagnetic theories. Since we still don't know the true nature of charge therefore any reasonable theory is welcome, just make sure that you don't make your theory standard by any standard. My question on smashing rocks is not exactly what you have described. For example, if you keep splitting a rock, you will end up with a collection of electrons, protons and neutrons and then you can say with certainty that the rock is made up of electrons, protons and neutrons. On the other hand, if you keep smashing elementary particles you don't end up with the supposed-to-be-fundamental particles that you are looking for but also with a mess of other debris. It's totally strange to formulate a physical theory by pick and choose, let alone a fundamental theory.

Dwight, I agree with your descriptions of mass and size. In other words, size has a topological property that depends very much on the domain of influence, as you said. I am a down-to-earth physicist therefore it is very hard for me to accept something that seems to be acceptable but in fact it is not. For example, in physics we say bosons are particles that can occupy the same place in space. To my way of thinking this can happen only if we endorse a mathematics in which 1+1=1. Furthermore, for the case of fermions we can employ a mathematics in which 1+1=0.

Kind regards,

Vu.

Dear Vu

I wonder what you mean by this "mess of other debris" beside electrons protons and neutrons that you mention. To my knowledge, nothing other than electrons protons and neutrons can be found in any atom making up anything on earth.

Can you clarify?

Dear Vu

With all due respect, it is not the case that bosons can occupy the same point in space (whatever that may mean) but that more than one boson can occupy the same quantum state. A point in space is ephemeral  while a quantum state is a mathematical fiction that however, appears to provide a description in the quantum-mechanical realm of atomic dimensions.

 Dear Andre, Dwight and Mesut,

Andre, I just mean sub-sub-atomic particles such as strange particles and those that you can find in an elementary particles list. When they smash elementary particles normally they find more than what they look for, not the same as when you split an atom you only find electrons, protons and neutrons. 

Dwight, I agree with you that a quantum state is a vague concept. However, I think what I wrote down in my post is what they stated in physics. Maybe they did not mean what they wanted to mean. For the purpose of a physical formulation, it is not possible to determine a physical state without introducing a coordinate system which involves space and time, in other words, positions. I believe that quantum physics is simply incomplete.

Mesut, that's a nicely written article. Even though the relationship between the mass and the size of an elementary particle in your article is not the same as mine but they do have some similar features, especially the space itself is massless, or almost.

Kind regards,

Vu.

Dear Vu

I think that I understand the source of confusion. In quantum mechanics we introduce an abstract infinite-dimensional complex* linear vector "space" called "Hilbert space." This space is analogous to but quite different from our ordinary (Euclidean) space of three dimensions (for example, it is a "space" of infinite dimensions!). This space is a mathematical construct. A quantum state is represented mathematically in a normalized Hilbert space by a "vector" v such that the "scalar product" v ∙v = 1 for v ≭ 0. "Position" in Hilbert space is a vector quantity with direction and length that does not correspond to a "point" in our three-dimensional "physical" space. Any state of a quantum system can be constructed as a weighted sum (superposition) of two or more component states whose relative weights in the superposition define a probability distribution of finding the quantum system in any of its component states. Bosons occupy quantum states in this abstract Hilbert space.

* the space is complex in the sense that in this space we have numbers z such that z = x +iy where the product i⋅i = -1.

Dear Vu,

Ok. I see what you mean now by "this mess of other debris" besides electron, proton and neutron.

Well, I did speak of these particles. I will quote the last paragraph of my long yesterday answer"

"If you add still more energy, you will destroy the nucleons by having one of the inner quarks converted to energy by being smashed against with sufficient force by either an up or down quark from an incoming proton, or an incoming electron or positron, resulting in the liberation of sufficient energy for it to fleetingly re-congeal into meta-stable more massive particles that almost instantly decay into the stable set of particles, which are electron, protons and neutron of which all atoms are made."

I could have added that when you smash two electron beams head on, or one electron beam and one positron beam, you have the very same result. See paper quoted below for details of one such string of experiments.

These fleetingly existing particles are "the strange particles and those that you find in an elementary particles list" that you mention.

They all are very well known and their practically instantaneous decay processes towards stable electron, positron, proton and neutrons state are very well documented and have been extensively been studied.

They are not part of normal matter because they don't exist long enough to become part of any structure since they disappear within a few fractions of a second, leaving behind only one or other of the stable set.

Moreover they occur only very locally in high energy accelerators and as by products of cosmic radiation (mostly made of hyper-eneregized protons) when these protons hit atoms and nuclei in the atmosphere and on the ground the earth and other large masses in the universe. They amount to practically nothing in the universe. They only hyper-energized states of the stable set.

You can find complete descriptions of all their decay processes in the CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, CRC Press, New York.

You find very little info on the internet about these processes and if you really want to understande them, I highly recommend that you purchase a copy of this book, which contains all known informations about elementary particles and atoms.

It is a little expensive, but I think that no exhaustive research about the submicroscopic level can be done without this book.

To summarize, there are no leftover debris at the submicroscopic level besides electron, proton and neutron, because all these other particles don't exist long enough to accumulate.

http://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.35.1609

http://cwp.library.ucla.edu/articles/hanson/evidence_jet_structure/evidence_jet_structure.html

Dear Dwight,

I do understand what they mean by Hilbert space, but actually they also mean the real spatial space when they say that bosons occupy the same place in space. For example, for more details please see the link below.

Kind regards,

Vu

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2010/nov/24/bosons-bossed-into-bose-einstein-condensate

Dear Andre,

Thanks again for your detailed explanations. But actually I said a mess of other debris besides those speculative quarks. Nothing to do with electrons, protons and neutrons. They expected to find only quarks, but no others, when they smash elementary particles like protons and neutrons, very much the same when you split an atom you only see electrons, protons and neutrons but nothing else. I always regard highly the quark theory, the only thing that concerns me is why it should be regarded as a standard model. 

Kind regards,

Vu.

Dear Vu

We may be dealing  here with a semantic issue. In the Bosé-Einstein Condensate (BEC) the photons occupied the same volume in space with a very high photon density but not the same place in space in the sense of being at the same point in space. The essence of the experiment was to create a region in space that contained a single photonic quantum state in which the photons accumulated. I think that your analogy of "1 + 1 = 1" apples to the photon's quantum state but not to the region in space in which they were confined.

Dear Dwight,

Thanks for your interpretation of the experiment. Quantum physics is weird, isn't it? But if the photons just accumulated then in what sense are they different from classical particles, like condensation of water vapor?

Kind regards,

Vu.

Hi!

You are absolutely right! The photons are a "condesate" analogous to a water drop except in the photon case the photons are condensed in the sense that all of them occupy the same quantum state. They also are confined to a region in space but they do not form a condensate in this case because there is no mutual attraction between the photons like there is between the water molecules in a water droplet. Yes quantum mechanics is strange but also very besutiful, methinks.

Dear Ales

i need to  understand what it is that you mean by occupying "the same physical space"? The space surrounding us is a sea filled with bosons (photons). Aren't these photons all occupying the same " physical space"?

A footnote: When we speak of "photons" in (empty) space it probably more realistic to drop the particle concept "photon" and speak of the electromagnetic field.

Aleš

There was such a successful esperiment in 1997. See paper attached

http://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.79.1626