Definition of a particle?

[snoopy]

snoopy,

 

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

 

 

Oh ok then.......backs away slowly....;)

 

Cheers

:hihi:

[martillo]

snoopy,

I mean that to state that "everything", particularly the basic elements by which Nature and the Universe are made, behave sometimes as "particles" and sometimes as "waves" (the called "wave-particle duality") is just a way to hidde the mistery.

The real structure of the elementary "particles" of nature is actually lacking in the current theories of Physics. Assume they are points is not right since this does not explain for example how particles have magnetic moment or spin.

I have found a structure for them that explain all main physical phenomena and experiments but I reconize that it has the problem to be not compatible with main current theories... nevertheless may be someone could be interested.

[DougF]

Oh ok then.......backs away slowly....B)

 

Cheers

:)

I See you have a sense of humor to. :doh:

[snoopy]

snoopy,

I mean that to state that "everything", particularly the basic elements by which Nature and the Universe are made, behave sometimes as "particles" and sometimes as "waves" (the called "wave-particle duality") is just a way to hidde the mistery.

The real structure of the elementary "particles" of nature is actually lacking in the current theories of Physics.

 

 

I can't really agree that the standard model is lacking, it is one of the most outlandish and successful models in the history of physics its predicted a whole raft of particles that even the most 'crazed hack theorist' could have come up with.

 

As for wave-particle duality it is just the most responsible way of looking at the photon ie one that agrees with experiment.

 

I never claimed it was satisfying it isn't.

 

But I can't agree that physicists invented the term just to 'hide' the mystery either.

 

I have found a structure for them that explain all main physical phenomena and experiments but I reconize that it has the problem to be not compatible with main current theories... nevertheless may be someone could be interested.

 

Good for you !! I suggest submitting your paper for peer review to a physical review body of your choice and claiming your Nobel prize. When you become an international sensation and millionaire just remember the little people at hypography ok ?

 

Cheers

:doh:

[martillo]

snoopy,

But I can't agree that physicists invented the term just to 'hide' the mystery either.

But it works that way giving an answer for something without explaining at all what really happens.

It wasn't invented to hide the mistery but it is a bad answer that calms the hungry to know something without explaining it.

 

Good for you !! I suggest submitting your paper for peer review to a physical review body of your choice and claiming your Nobel prize. When you become an international sensation and millionaire just remember the little people at hypography ok ?

I will not follow that path. That is for genius only, right or wrong genius, and I'm not.

[martillo]

snoopy,

I can't really agree that the standard model is lacking, it is one of the most outlandish and successful models in the history of physics its predicted a whole raft of particles that even the most 'crazed hack theorist' could have come up with.

Do you mean any kind of particle with -1, 0 or +1 charge and any mass between some possible range?

That is exactly what is predicted by the new theories.

You should take a look.

[snoopy]

snoopy,

 

Do you mean any kind of particle with -1, 0 or +1 charge and any mass between some possible range?

That is exactly what is predicted by the new theories.

You should take a look.

 

 

No I don't.

 

Is it ?

 

Should I ?

 

Cheers

;)

[CraigD]

snoopy,

I can't really agree that the standard model is lacking, it is one of the most outlandish and successful models in the history of physics its predicted a whole raft of particles that even the most 'crazed hack theorist' could have come up with.

Do you mean any kind of particle with -1, 0 or +1 charge and any mass between some possible range?

That is exactly what is predicted by the new theories.

You should take a look.

The Standard Model predicts fundamental particles – ones that are not composed of other particles – to have charges of -1, -2/3, -1/3, 0, +1/3, +2/3, and +1.

 

Martillo, since most people interested in particle physics are conversant in the Standard Model, you might find it an effective approach to a description of your ideas by relating them to the 18 particles and corresponding antiparticles of the Standard Model. These particles are well-documented in scientific literature, including summary descriptions in the wikipedia link above, so explaining each of them in your formalism – even by claiming one of more of them don’t exist even as composite particle – would help people understand what you’re talking about, and connect the discussion to a rich literature of experimental data useful in the critical analysis of your ideas, presented as well-defined hypotheses.

 

As this thread is a year old, and has wandered into many areas of discussion of the concept of “a particle”, you might want to redirect such discussion to your 12006, or to a new thread in the Alternative theories forum.

[martillo]

CraigD,

I agree that discussions about the new elementary particles I'm proposing must be placed at the "Alternative Theories" forum. I don't want to discuss about this here but I couldn't avoid mention that there is a new possibility for the "particles" to be explored and developed further. I will not discuss about them here.

Just let me comment something:

The Standard Model predicts fundamental particles – ones that are not composed of other particles – to have charges of -1, -2/3, -1/3, 0, +1/3, +2/3, and +1.

The "quarks" with fractional charges are theoretical entities on which the Standard Model" is based but they were never detected isolated experimentally. I mean no particle with fractional charge has ever been detected experimentally.

All detected particles have integer -1, 0 or +1 charge.

[snoopy]

CraigD,

 

The "quarks" with fractional charges are theoretical entities on which the Standard Model" is based but they were never detected isolated experimentally. I mean no particle with fractional charge has ever been detected experimentally.

All detected particles have integer -1, 0 or +1 charge.

 

If you mean 'free' quarks have never been detected then this is true,

but the quark model is the only model to correctly predict all the experiments in electron scattering and muon scattering and neutrino scattering experiments that particle physicists have carried out.

 

Other theories were proposed all failed to correctly predict the results of experiments via these methods.

 

Also QCD explains why 'free' quarks are never detected and everyone now accepts the quark model because it is the only model that predicts the correct results and it is also mathematically pleasing into the bargain which is always a plus.

 

Any new model would have a really hard time in agreeing with scattering experiments, I have never came across one but I am willing to give it the benefit of the doubt but comments like 'Have you heard of the new theories ?' are generally annoying because you are not being specific at all never mind enough !! Which causes me to switch off and respond in one sentence answers.

 

Fractional evidence for the charge comes from the scattering experiments also and from the discovery of 'charmonium' particles.

 

The evidence is always going to be indirect however as the particles are small.

 

If this is in some way not satisfying for you, I can't really help you out. Its inherent in the nature of particle physics. That is the field deals with very small hard to detect objects.

 

Cheers

:(