When an electrically charged body is accelerated it emits photons, can same be true for color charged bodies?
Okay, may be we cannot rely on QCD completely, but what will happen should QCD be correct.
“….Should an accelerated quark emit gluons? … When an electrically charged body is accelerated it emits photons, can same be true for color charged bodies?….”
- really the question contains at least a couple of fundamental flaws, which are in the mainstream QED, though.
First – and evident one - is that really yeah, accelerated electric charge emits photons – but that are real observable photons, while in QED charge, either is at rest, or a motion or an accelerated motion, for/by some mystic reason/way, and from some so infinite energy source, constantly and always emits “virtual” photons, so mediating constantly and always the fundamental Nature Electric force,
- what looks as rather questionable QED postulate; however in Standard [particles] Model just real photons are postulated as real this Force mediators, what again looks as something even too questionable.
The above in the comment relates really mostly so not to a fundamental physical problem “what are the real “Electric Force mediator”, and “photon”, which really evidently isn’t a mediator in this case? but to the fundamentally strange postulates in mainstream QED,
- while the other, and really fundamental, physical problem is just “so what are really scientific answers to the questions above instead really the evidently transcendent QED postulates above?”
The answers can be, and with a well non-zero probability are, given only in the Shevchenko-Tokarevsky’s informational physical model , two main papers are
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/354418793_The_Informational_Conception_and_the_Base_of_Physics , and
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/355361749_The_informational_physical_model_and_fundamental_problems_in_physics; where most of material objects, including “particles” and “fields” are scientifically defined,
- and more concretely in the SS&VT 2007 initial model of Gravity and Electric Forces in
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/365437307_The_informational_model_-_Gravity_and_Electric_Forces
- and 2023 model of Nuclear Force, in
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/369357747_The_informational_model_-Nuclear_Force
More see the links, here note only, that fundamental Forces’ mediators aren’t particles, and so, though are radiated constantly and always don’t contain/carry any energy, while at acceleration of corresponding charges under some external force and corresponding obtaining by charges and mediators external energy, the mediators transform into real particles – the observed photons, till now non-observed but for sure existent gravitons, and observed at least π-mesons.
The virtual in QCD gluons weren’t observed experimentally till now, however practically for sure the real Strong Force mediators, let – gluons – aren’t particles, while if would be externally impacted in some “free” state, that would be some “gluonons” – or, what looks as more reasonable – in such case again some mesons would be observed – and that is really observed at high energy interactions of nucleons, where nucleons are heavily accelerated.
More see the links
Cheers
Quote: "Okay, maybe we cannot rely on QCD completely, but what will happen should QCD be correct."
Total waste of time. There is no ifs and buts about QCD.
It must be made clear here, that even after 60 years of its development, no one has been able to formulate the equations of the QCD theory 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.
Ref: K. Rith and A. Schäfer. The Mystery of Nucleon Spin, Scientific American, July 1999, page 60.
Also, the idea that electrically charged particles emits photons when accelerated is also a misconception. They emit photons only when their default trajectory is forcibly deflected from straight line motion, for example, or stopped in their motion.
In the last post above the claim that QCD really is rather strange theory is really correct – see the SS post above, though in the SS post above that is scientifically grounded, while in this post the grounds are rather questionable, say, that
“….QCD theory with sufficient precision to correctly describe a nucleon which was its stated justification when it was proposed”
- isn’t completely correct, now QCD, say, calculates masses of nucleons with only a few % deviation from experimental value; and so existent QCD problems can be, in principle, solved remaining in framework of this theory,
- while it is incorrect fundamentally – why? - see the SS post above. And that
“…Also, the idea that electrically charged particles emits photons when accelerated is also a misconception. They emit photons only when their trajectory is forcibly deflected from straight line motion or stopped in their motion.…..”
- looks as too questionable claim. A particle’s velocity is a 3D vector, and, as that yet Newton completely correctly wrote, any “deflection from straight line motion”, and when a particle is “stopping in its motion” are just accelerations and nothing else; and acceleration when a particle is accelerating with increasing its speed along a straight line by no means differs from the case when it is stopping, though.
Cheers
The presupposition is that at a critical point the potential stored in the colour field manifests itself as spontaneously emitted gluons, which then split into quark-antiquark pairs.
Five percent of nucleon mass comes from Higgs interaction with three quarks and ninety-five percent comes from the back-reaction of gluon fields, resisting accelerated motion of quarks and gluons, inside each nucleon. I conjecture that the ninety-five percent backreaction mass is SU(3)grav from aikyon theory. Because I found measurements of the other two new aikyon fundamental forces hiding in existing literature, SU(2)grav and U(1)grav, I’m now searching for the third new force, SU(3)grav. To answer your question, QCD is not only correct, but also very correct, in the sense that it computes the ninety-five percent number extremally well. The first few minutes of my search for hiding SU(3)grav unclassified data led directly to LANL. So, nuclear aikyon gravitational binding energy accounts for most of nucleon mass. It looks like friction but is really only aikyon gravitational binding energy, because the special theory of relativity insists. But E = mc^2 and burning small amounts of this mass, without inducing bata decay and killing yourself, should be possible?
Stars, planets and life could only emerge because particles gained their mass from a fundamental field associated with the Higgs boson. This is preposterous .
The Higgs is all Fake – How Particle Physicists Fooled the Nobel Committee is a merciless critique of the Large Hadron Collider at CERN and of the theoretical model on which the world’s most expensive experiment is based. Unzicker, a German physicist and award-winning science writer, argues that the reaction of the Swedish Academy to last year’s discovery appears to be a result of being beguiled by CERN’s attempts to justify the billions of dollars of public money being spent. The book starts off by claiming that the greatest physicists such as Einstein, Dirac of Schrödinger would have considered the “discovery” of the Higgs particle "ridiculous" .
The reasons, according to the author, are that: “1) the so-called standard model has grown unbelievably complicated, 2) none of the great riddles of physics that have persisted for a century have been solved, 3) history suggests that the current model is a dead end, 4) with their ever-more intricate experimental techniques, particle physicists are fooling themselves with alleged results, 5) scientific convictions in the community are established by blind faith in expert opinions, group-think and parroting, and 6) the data analysis in its complexity cannot be overseen by anybody.”
Unzicker gives a historical survey of the field, and concludes that particle physics, as practiced since 1930, is “a futile enterprise in its entirety.” In the last section, “Antidotes,” he specifically attacks “the overstated claims by famous physicists such as Rolf-Dieter Heuer, Michio Kaku, Lisa Randall, Sean Carroll, Brian Cox and Jim Al-Khalili.” At the end, Unzicker lists questions that he would like to be asked to particle physicists at press conferences, hearings and discussions.Unzicker's books have been very much praised as “well-grounded, sound, [and] informed,” and as “vehement pleading for physics as a natural science, in its best tradition,” but also dismissed by particle physicists as an “incoherent rant” and “time-wasting nonsense.” The new book, written in an even more explicit and provocative tone, is likely to upset the high energy physics community.
Dear Dr. Akash Verma,
It seems, the structural hierarchy of the material world is organized in such a way that an object located within the limits of a small confinement does not feel the kinematics of higher confinements. Therefore, the field of chromatic charges that are part of nucleons and other particles will not feel acceleration in the collider or in cosmic magnetic fields. Accordingly, there will be no induction of gluons. Another thing is a hypothetical free quark. But where is it?
And a quite different matter is behavior of quark-gluon plasma inside the confinement of an “elementary” particle is, i.e. in scale ~10-13 cm. Here the Heisenberg relation operates as a special case of the principle of reciprocity. So the fuzzy sets of values "p" and "q" endlessly "spin" like a Yin-Yang figure, mutually passing into each other. If these sets (and, accordingly, their union) are partially ordered, then we can represent the order relation as a time-like structure, and the cardinality of the set as a space-like one. So, the chromatic field feels kinematics in this space-time by definition, and then quark-gluon plasma being in micro-confinement can be represented in accordance with your hypothesis.
“…It seems, the structural hierarchy of the material world is organized in such a way that an object located within the limits of a small confinement does not feel the kinematics of higher confinements. Therefore, the field of chromatic charges that are part of nucleons and other particles will not feel acceleration in the collider or in cosmic magnetic fields. Accordingly, there will be no induction of gluons. Another thing is a hypothetical free quark. But where is it?…”, etc.
- again – see the SS posts above – even hypothetical free quark would exist, and by some way would be accelerated, it would not radiate the Strong Force mediators “gluons”, it would radiate only some particles, well probably – mesons, gluons transform in which,
– as that happens if an electric charge is accelerated, when the Electric Force mediators “circular photons ” transform into “ordinary” photons , and as that happens at NN interactions, where heavily accelerated nucleons radiate “ordinary” mesons which are transformed “circular mesons”; while it isn’t impossible that the “circular mesons” really are gluons.
More see the SS posts above 2 days ago now and papers that are linked in the post.
Cheers
Thank you everyone for your answers, Sergey Shevchenko Alexey Orlovsky Reza Sanaye George Soli and André Michaud
Akash Verma
you are welcome , Sir ............
I hope U are not gonna close down the thread so sooon ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
REZA
of course not, but I think we should start asking questions from the very fundamentals and move forward from there.
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Are_mass_energy_equation_and_energy-momentum_relation_E2_mc22_pc2_fundamental
this might be a better question to ask, I think.
- Badges
- Science topic