Definition of a particle?

[HydrogenBond]

I can accept long lived particles making waves. This makes sense since particles interact via the forces of nature and energy, which are artifacts of the particles. These affects are wave in nature. There are also short live virtual particles that go both ways, where waves can make these particles and if they exist for finite time can make waves.

 

The question that remains is why are certain particles or composites long-lived and extremely stable? For example, the proton. It is very stuburn and doesn't readiy go back to just waves like virtual particles. My theory has to do with time dilation. The proton is time dilated. This would allow it to be composed of virtual particles, like theory suggests, with the time dilation making these appear to exist much longer in our reference. When we smash a proton we neutralize its special relativity affects making short-lived particles without time dilation in our reference, that can convert back to waves.

[FRIPRO]

I can accept long lived particles making waves. This makes sense since particles interact via the forces of nature and energy, which are artifacts of the particles. These affects are wave in nature. There are also short live virtual particles that go both ways, where waves can make these particles and if they exist for finite time can make waves.

 

The question that remains is why are certain particles or composites long-lived and extremely stable? For example, the proton. It is very stuburn and doesn't readiy go back to just waves like virtual particles. My theory has to do with time dilation. The proton is time dilated. This would allow it to be composed of virtual particles, like theory suggests, with the time dilation making these appear to exist much longer in our reference. When we smash a proton we neutralize its special relativity affects making short-lived particles without time dilation in our reference, that can convert back to waves.

 

HydrogenBond: You have brushed on its simple answer: look to the moon, the Earth, the astroides etc, the sun, the stars, the reason is the same for the electron, proton and other long lasting particles.

 

If one accepts the Newton Ether and the particles that make it exist, these particles are also long lasting -- and they make up everything else.

 

I can assure you that the Universe can make any of the above convert to radiation (waves) under the right conditions.

 

Think of the waves (radiation) on a beautifull beach doing the work of mass, as it sweeps inward. E=hv being radiation waves and E=mc2 being mass sweeping inward on the beach doing work (deadly force).

 

The wave anology being made of particles. A dual existance the photon (light) or the protron (mass). FRIPRO

[Aireal]

FRIPRO

 

When HydrogenBond mentioned the stablity of the proton, I belive he was refering to its rate of decay verses other virtual particles. It decay has not been detected yet, last I heard.

 

I like to investagate new ideas when I can. Milo Wolf's math on the electron can also be applied to the other real particles of 1/2 spin in quantum mechanics. So the other virtual particles mut be related to the wave structure of space surrounding the particles. In quantum mechanics the virtual particles should decay, and they do mostly, but the proton seems very stable. I addressed this point in my paper on this site, http://hypography.com/forums/science-papers/8055-w-s-m-expanded.html where I tried to expand on Wolf's work. In it I found that the most stable virtual particle would be the proton in his model. I called this structure a Ternary Standing Wave Center to keep the wording consistant with his work.

 

A lot of work has been done on his theory, called W.S.M. or the Wave Structure of Matter. Most of it has been done from a cosmiclogical viewpoint. I wanted to test it by trying to create a model of the atom with it. I could, and the paper is the resulting model. I then posted it on their main forum. I would like to investagate other aspects of this model from a quantum perspective, where the least work has been done on it.

 

Thus so far, I have found Wolf's definition of a particle to work. It has promise at least.

[FRIPRO]

Tim_Lou

Here is a link to Dr. Milo Wolf's paper on the scalar wave structure of an electron. http://www.quantummatter.com/body_point.html

 

Infamous

You may also find it of interest, as it decribes the electron as the intersection of two scalar waves, creating a standing wave center. Very much like your idea of Localized Orbital Energy Flux.

 

CraigD

Check out the link also, because it shows how fields can be used to explain the action of particles.

 

Popular

You may like it also, as it is based on standing waves.

 

HydrogenBond

I am glad you pointed out the differance between virtual and real particles in this thread, as that is one very important point that causes confusion. Another point that needs clearing is we are talking about scalar waves not electromagnetic wave it at some points in this thread, the two are not the same.

 

CORRECTION: to Dr. Milo Wolf's paper on the scalar wave structure http://www.quantummatter.com/ FRIPRO

[HydrogenBond]

I was driving today and notice something interesting and applicable to what we have been discussing. I was behind a lawn care person, pulling a trailor with a 1000 gallon transluscent tank of fertilizer water. It was about half full.

 

What was interesting; changes of momentum were causing waves in the tank. The accelerating mass of water was causing vertical displacements as waves in the tank. The water particles propagates their energy through waves without any one particle moving with the entire wave.

 

If we look at a tidal wave, something like a landslide, accelerates the local water. But the same water molecules don't propagate all the way across the ocean. Rather, they transfer their energy into waves. When the wave decellerate, as its hits a coastline, the wave energy becomes transferred back into the local water mass, lifting it up against gravity.

 

What this tells me is that there are two wave scenarios. One propagates through a medium. The other is caused by actual movement without a medium, such as when an electron or proton moves. The first seems most evident in solids, liquids and maybe gases. While the other occurs in rarified space and/or in a vacuum.

[Aireal]

HydrogenBond

 

You got the concept down of what Milo Wolf was getting at. We have not looked into the effects of scalar waves that are produced by particles, nor probed the relationship between them.

 

Waves are a very efficent means of transfering energy between particles and organizing them. I have tried to extend his model down to quark level, and show a means by which the scalar waves can group them.

 

I do not know the limit of this model, like the smallist possible particle. I suppose the math would hold true until you reached the limit of the uncertainity principle. Also remember that even though the size of a standing wave center is related to its mass, that does not mean its matter is equal to that size. Example a black hole, all matter is compressed to a point, but the standing wave center is the size of the event horizion in this model. Thus the particle may fill the wave center, be a point at the center, or a size in between which orbits around the center. These states may be the spin of particles in quantum theory.

 

Another factor to consider is scale. At the atomic scale, charge is a major force. In large objects, like planets and such, the charges tend cancel out, reducing their impact. Mass, or gravity, would be the dominant force.

 

My paper also had linke to site about W.S.M. to which I refered readers for the graphs on them. It is a good site to research this concept farther.

[martillo]

I think that anything (any object) very small in size could be called "particle".

 

Note that "very small in size" is something relative to the context in consideration. For example the following statements applies well:

1) Dust is due to particles in the air.

2) Atoms are composed by more basic particles: the proton, the neutron and the electrons.

3) Quarks are the most elementary particles in the subatomic Standard Model.

[martillo]

The right question then is not what is a particle but how are the basic particles of nature, which are their structures.

 

I think currently is assumed that the most elementary particles are points.

 

This leaves to some problems, for example how a point can have spin and magnetic moment.

[Tormod]

I think currently is assumed that the most elementary particles are points.

 

What do you base this assumption on? IMHO it is currently accepted that *all* fundamental particles (for example protons, neutrons, electrons) are basically condensation of energy which are wave-like in nature.

 

Waves and Particles

 

I am not so sure what you mean by "elementary particles" though. Maybe you can be more specific?

[martillo]

Tormod,

I am not so sure what you mean by "elementary particles" though. Maybe you can be more specific?

I think in the most elementary particles as the undivisible ones.

Greeks thought that matter should be composed by undivisible particles called atoms. Physics evolved discovering that what was previously thought as the basic particles were composed by still more basic particles:

atoms-->(protons, neutrons and electrons)--> quarks

I believe current Physics states that the most elementary particles of nature (the undivisible ones) are the quarks the electron/positron and the photons.

 

Which is the structure current Physics gives to them?

[Tormod]

In fact, we have no evidence of undivisible particles. The photon is possibly the most fundamental particle we know of, and possible the quarks, but whether they are indivisible is not something we can prove.

 

As for them being particles (as in point particles), I think that's a fairly strong "no" as far as physics are concerned. They're not little billiard balls that keep bouncing off each other... ;)

[martillo]

Tormod,

As for them being particles (as in point particles), I think that's a fairly strong "no" as far as physics are concerned. They're not little billiard balls that keep bouncing off each other...

How they are then? Which is their structure?

[Farsight]

They're stable solitons of stressed space.

 

There are no actual boundaries or surfaces.

[martillo]

A totally new concept of the elementary particles is introduced here:

 

The most elementary particles of the Universe

 

To see how the model explain all the main phenomena and experiments of Physics other sections inexed at the home page must be read:

A New Light In Physics

[Qfwfq]

They're not little billiard balls that keep bouncing off each other... ;)

But that's not exactly what particle physicists mean, when they pronounce the term particle.

 

Now despite all the counterintuitive aspects of quantum physics, it does make sense to think of particles as somehow having the classical aspects. While hadrons are composite (and hence not point-like), quarks and leptons are not and the tightest scattering data shows no sign of radial distribution; they appear point-like as far down as we have detected. This is harder to say for quarks, as we can't target single ones, but currently we have no reason to suspect them being composite.

[snoopy]

Particles

* Have mass (inertia)

* respond to forces (acceleration)

* Have momentum (mass X velocity)

 

Waves

* Transfer energy from one place to another

* are mechanical (require a medium)

* are non-mechanical (no medium required)

 

Equations for Photelectric Effect

 

E(photon) = f + KE(max)

 

KE(max) = qV(stopping)

 

E(photon) = hf

 

1 Light is made of photons

2 Quantized packets of radiant energy

3 One photon emits one photo-electron

4 Current is proportional to the intensity of the light

5 KE of the emitted photo-electrons is proportional to the frequency of the light

 

Light has momentum but has no mass

 

from special relativity E = mc²

momentum (p) = mv = (E/c²)(v)

therefore p = E / c

 

since E = hf = h (c/lambda),

p = (hc/lambda) / c

p = h / lambda

 

To summarise:

Light is a non-mechanical wave/particle with momentum but no mass.

 

I think that about covers it.

 

Cheers

;)

[martillo]

snoopy,

To summarise:

Light is a non-mechanical wave/particle with momentum but no mass.

 

I think that about covers it.

May be that is enough for you, not for me.