Talanum46 Posted October 14 Report Posted October 14 My model for electrons has it that they are made of the sub-parts of an anti-ud quark pair. They come from decay of an anti-ud. The electron antineutrino carries the rest of the parts. This is a more physical picture of them.
Talanum46 Posted October 25 Author Report Posted October 25 Evidence of this is that Anyons have e/3 charge. Anyons are electrons confined to a plane, then we see that the sub-anti-up charge rotates in and out of the plane, therefore gets ignored while the e/3 charge of the down sub-quark stays in the plane and gets measured.
Vmedvil Posted October 25 Report Posted October 25 (edited) On 10/14/2024 at 6:06 AM, Talanum46 said: My model for electrons has it that they are made of the sub-parts of an anti-ud quark pair. They come from decay of an anti-ud. The electron antineutrino carries the rest of the parts. This is a more physical picture of them. 5 hours ago, Talanum46 said: Evidence of this is that Anyons have e/3 charge. Anyons are electrons confined to a plane, then we see that the sub-anti-up charge rotates in and out of the plane, therefore gets ignored while the e/3 charge of the down sub-quark stays in the plane and gets measured. I don't think this is the case in reality according to the standard model electrons are themselves a type of quark which is called a lepton just as muons and tauons when you split an electron it releases an electron neutrino which would be a more likely candidate for a particle that makes up electrons than the meson you have provided. However, according to the standard model there is no sub quarks that makes up an electron, muon, or tauon which themselves are actually a type of quark which is what I tend to believe is correct. "Leptons are said to be elementary particles; that is, they do not appear to be made up of smaller units of matter. Leptons can either carry one unit of electric charge or be neutral. The charged leptons are the electrons, muons, and taus. Each of these types has a negative charge and a distinct mass." Link = Lepton | Elementary Particles, Subatomic Particles & Quarks | Britannica Edited October 25 by Vmedvil OceanBreeze 1
Talanum46 Posted October 26 Author Report Posted October 26 What do you say about my proof using Anyons. The e/3 charge suggests at the very least that electrons have substructure.
OceanBreeze Posted October 30 Report Posted October 30 On 10/26/2024 at 4:47 PM, Talanum46 said: What do you say about my proof using Anyons. The e/3 charge suggests at the very least that electrons have substructure. Before attempting to counter your proposition, perhaps a short review of standard particle physics will help set the stage for what is to come: After two identical particles interact, quantum mechanics predicts that the wave function will gain a phase factor: Ψ → φ Ψ Wave function for identical particles: Pij Ψ = eiθij Ψ θij= 0, eiθij = 1 ; Pij = 1; = Bosons (force carriers, photons, gluons, etc (mediate interactions between matter particles) θij = π, , eiθij = -1 ; Pij = −1; = Fermions, particles that make up matter, electrons, quarks, etc Summarizing: For bosons φ = 0 ; photons, gluons, Higgs Boson, these are the force carriers. For fermions φ = π ; electrons, baryons (protons and neutrons) quarks, these are the particles that make up matter. To emphasize the point: In three dimensions, there are two categories of particles depending on the value of the phase factor φ acquired by the wavefunction in an interaction (exchange process): bosons satisfy φ = 0 and fermions φ = π. The resulting wave function φ Ψ is referred to as the Quantum Statistics for the particle exchange and as you can see, for both Bosons and Fermions, the Quantum Statistics are not fractional. Enter the Anyon! Anyons are the latest addition to a growing family of phenomena called quasiparticles, which are not elementary particles, but instead are collective excitations of many electrons in two dimensional devices. Anyone who seeks to understand Anyons, must journey into the world of quantum weirdness where things make sense to only a relative handful of people, who conduct bizarre experiments, then argue among themselves about what it all means. There is a reason I reviewed phase factors and wavefunctions and mentioned Quantum Statistics at the start of this post; it is because Anyons do not follow the same rules that apply to Bosons and Fermions. The total wave function for Bosons sees its phase unchanged (phase shift = 0) in particle exchanges, while the wave function is assigned a phase factor eiπ = -1 for Fermions, in agreement with 3-dimensional observations. However, experiments conducted in two dimensions involving the same exchange operation, the phase factor eiθ may take any value, where θ is the “statistical angle”, whose value defines a particular anyonic statistical distribution. Not only can the statistical angle have fractional values, these quasiparticles also carry fractional charge, e/m where m = 3 or 4 or 5 …possibly an infinity of fractional charges. This means these quasiparticles cannot be quarks (which also carry fractional charge) because quarks do not have fractional statistics, as I already explained. Why are these quantum scientists bothering with all this, you may ask, (as I also asked)? It is because classical computers operate with only two possible charge states, 1 and 0. A quantum computer using Anyons as charge carriers could, at least in theory, operate with any number of well-defined fractional charges, possibly allowing for a new type of quantum super computer. Now, to finally return to the proposition proposed in this thread that the electron is not a fundamental particle, (that electrons have substructure) based on the observation of that Anyons can have e/3 charge. If you read and understand my explanation above, you already know the answer to this. The electron is an elementary particle carrying the elementary charge “e” that is a fundamental constant of physics. Electrons do not have a substructure. Anyons are not elementary particles that comprise a supposed substructure of electrons. Anyons are instead collective excitations of many electrons in two dimensional devices. They are artificial quasiparticles which, under very special circumstances, carry fractional electric charge similar to quarks. However they are unlike quarks because Anyons’ Quantum Statistics are fractional while the Quantum Statistics of quarks is -1, the same as all Fermions.
Talanum46 Posted November 2 Author Report Posted November 2 (edited) On 10/30/2024 at 12:49 PM, OceanBreeze said: This means these quasiparticles cannot be quarks (which also carry fractional charge) I'm not saying they are quarks. They are anti-ud sub-quark pairs. That these Anyons have charge e/3: it is the simplest explanation that it is because of the down sub-quark parts (the charge). As for the question that if the measuring apparatus sees a down quark, why is it's statistics fractional: the answer could be that the measuring apparatus sees a linear combination (with fractional coefficients not adding to 1 or 1/2) of the two spins of the two sub-quarks. Edited November 3 by Talanum46 Left out something.
Diamonds Posted November 14 Report Posted November 14 I have been thinking could pressure have an influence on electrons inside world. AI of course denies. Hare Krishna book seems to say that quantum mechanic world is vice versa compared to normal. Normal: spark--- em wave---heat---Fire QM: fire---heat---em wave---spark So could pressure produce QM phenomena inside an electron which is difficult to study. Something change inside an electron when it is lowest of the low and under pressure. Those changes may help to cause for instance: 1. Buoyancy so that Iron boats wont sink. And stone is light unerneath the water. 2. Friction when being underneath Cars wheels on the road. 3. Storms when being at the low altitude in the athmosphere. 4. Coal turns to Diamond in a pressure and high temperature. AI says no way but I want to know if those 4 questions are totally explained without a possibility that something is going on inside an electron too when they occur. Or not? This idea was inspired by two not scientific books Bhagavatam and Kalevala. And this idea is probably nonsense. Is there any way to find out what is inside an electron. I want to find out too.
Talanum46 Posted November 15 Author Report Posted November 15 Just note that it forms from a anti-up-down quark pair and consider quantum number conservation and draw the anti-ud as circles with nodes on them for each quantum number of the pair. The observation of Anyons depends on the substructure of the electron. OceanBreeze 1
OceanBreeze Posted November 16 Report Posted November 16 18 hours ago, Talanum46 said: Just note that it forms from a anti-up-down quark pair What forms “from a anti-up-down quark pair”? Please be specific. 18 hours ago, Talanum46 said: consider quantum number conservation and draw the anti-ud as circles with nodes on them for each quantum number of the pair. This is word salad. Why don’t you do the exercise you describe for us since this is your claim? You are the only one who is claiming that electrons have substructure. There is no experimental evidence to support such a claim and no accepted theory predicts electrons are anything other than elementary particles. There have been many attempts to break electrons apart, for example with electron-electron collisions. In many cases these collisions result in elastic scattering. Like two billiard balls, the angles and velocities of the electrons change, but their total kinetic energy remains constant. Sometimes the collisions are inelastic, where the electron energy does change; some of the electrons’ kinetic energy is transformed to radiation emission of photons but the electrons themselves are not broken down into smaller particles. This transformed energy in a very high energy collision can be sufficient to create particle-antiparticle pairs (like electron-positron pairs). This process still does not break the original electrons into smaller particles because electrons have no inner structure. 18 hours ago, Talanum46 said: The observation of Anyons depends on the substructure of the electron. More word salad. According to the Standard Model of elementary particles: The mass of an electron is 0.511 MeV/c^2, making it the lightest stable subatomic particle known. (of course, I am not including massless particles nor am I including neutrinos because neutrinos are not particles of atoms) Since you have claimed, without any reference to support you, “The observation of Anyons depends on the substructure of the electron” then tell us what is the mass of an Anyon? Surely you should be able to find this information somewhere to support your claim. I predict you will not find any information on the mass of an Anyon simply because Anyons are not real particles. They are only artificial quasiparticles which arise from collective excitations of many electrons in experiments limited to two dimensions. You won’t find them in the Standard Model. You are entitled to have an opinion that Anyons show that electrons have substructure, but please do not try to claim this as a scientific fact unless you can provide some factual support to back up your claim. Read the site rules for guidance. In the mean time, I will continue to trust the Standard Model. This is how I refute your claim: I will convert the electron mass 0.511 MeV/c^2 to kilograms: 0.511 x E6ev x 1.6E-19 coulomb = 8.176E-14 Joules/9E16 = 9.1E-31 kilogram Now I will do the same for the Up Quark (smallest quark) at 2.3 Mev/c^2 2.3 x E6ev x 1.6E-19 coulomb = 3.68E-13 Joules/9E16 = 4.1E-30 kg The smallest quark has mass that is one order of magnitude greater than an electron’s mass. Only neutrinos have less mass than the electron, in fact neutrinos are about ten-thousand times less massive than electrons. Neutrinos cannot be substructure to electrons because neutrinos don't interact at all with the strong nuclear force that binds atomic nuclei together. However, neutrinos do interact with the weak force that controls radioactive decay. Hence this is how neutrinos are produced; for instance neutrinos result from the decay of tritium isotopes. If you still insist that electrons have substructure, to have any credence you need to name the sub-particle and provide its mass, or admit that this is only your unfounded opinion based on no facts or evidence. This thread definitely belongs in Strange Claims
Talanum46 Posted November 16 Author Report Posted November 16 (edited) 5 hours ago, OceanBreeze said: What forms “from a anti-up-down quark pair”? An electron. We are talking about electrons. 5 hours ago, OceanBreeze said: Why don’t you do the exercise you describe for us since this is your claim? What exercise? 5 hours ago, OceanBreeze said: On 11/15/2024 at 1:37 PM, Talanum46 said: The observation of Anyons depends on the substructure of the electron. More word salad. If you can't understand this "word salad" you have no business criticizing my claim. You are not going to find substructure by bouncing electrons off each other since structure is conserved. My claim is that Anyons are real electrons confined to a plane and a paper I read said so. They already measured their charge as 3/e - this fact cannot currently be explained by another model. If you want to refute me, explain this another way. As for the mass of an electron being smaller than that of a quark: the mass changes to the kinetic energy of the electron and electron anti-neutrino. This means the kinetic energy must satisfy: E_ke + E_knu = 20 MeV - not that much. This comes from the difference between electron mass and anti-ud mass. All we need to do is find this kinetic energy experimentally. The measured kinetic energy is a few MeV - not far off the predicted value. The anti-u's spin quantum number is given to the anti-neutrino in the reaction and the electron spin quantum number is copied from that of the down quark. So spin quantum number is conserved. Edited November 16 by Talanum46
Talanum46 Posted November 16 Author Report Posted November 16 (edited) This means an electron anti-neutrino must have spin = -1/2*h_bar which agrees with it being called an anti-particle. (0 = 1/2 - 1/2) Edited November 16 by Talanum46
OceanBreeze Posted November 16 Report Posted November 16 46 minutes ago, Talanum46 said: An electron. We are talking about electrons. You are not talking about electrons when you say that it "forms from a anti-up-down quark pair". Electrons are fundamental particles. What part of that do you not understand? When you make a claim that goes against the Standard Model you need to have some support in the form of a reference. You have not provided any support for your "strange claim". 46 minutes ago, Talanum46 said: What exercise? This exercise, that you posted. Don't you remember? "consider quantum number conservation and draw the anti-ud as circles with nodes on them for each quantum number of the pair." So go ahead and do that and tell us what it is supposed to mean. 46 minutes ago, Talanum46 said: If you can't understand this "word salad" you have no business criticizing my claim. LOL. When you post word salad you can expect to be called out and required to explain it. You obviously cannot explain your own word salad so don't expect me to do it for you. 46 minutes ago, Talanum46 said: You are not going to find substructure by bouncing electrons off each other since structure is conserved. Is structure a conserved quantity? Normally it is not, as particle accelerators have shown by creating new particles by colliding protons. However, you are right about electrons but you don't seem to know why. Structure is conserved in electron collision because electrons are fundamental particles and cannot be broken down into sub-particles; something that destroys your claim that electrons have sub-structure. 46 minutes ago, Talanum46 said: My claim is that Anyons are real electrons confined to a plane and a paper I read said so. They already measured their charge as 3/e - this fact cannot currently be explained by another model. If you want to refute me, explain this another way. Oh you read that in a paper, did you? Then please provide a link with copy and paste . I will refute you by providing a link and copy & paste of the truth of the matter: "Anyons are the latest addition to a growing family of phenomena called quasiparticles, which are not elementary particles but collective excitations of many electrons in solid devices. " Link is Here 46 minutes ago, Talanum46 said: As for the mass of an electron being smaller than that of a quark: the mass changes to the kinetic energy of the electron and electron anti-neutrino. This means the kinetic energy must satisfy: E_ke + E_knu = 20 MeV - not that much. This comes from the difference between electron mass and anti-ud mass. All we need to do is find this kinetic energy experimentally. The measured kinetic energy is a few MeV - not far off the predicted value. The anti-u's spin quantum number is given to the anti-neutrino in the reaction and the electron spin quantum number is copied from that of the down quark. So spin quantum number is conserved. More word salad. Almost sounds like something but means nothing. Since you continue to post nonsense and try to pass it off as fact, without any references to back up your claims, consider this as a warning to read the site rules. Meanwhile, this thread gets demoted to Silly Claims.
Talanum46 Posted November 16 Author Report Posted November 16 You haven't explained the Anyon charge - this is the reference of my claim. I will look for the reference. 5 minutes ago, OceanBreeze said: 1 hour ago, Talanum46 said: As for the mass of an electron being smaller than that of a quark: the mass changes to the kinetic energy of the electron and electron anti-neutrino. This means the kinetic energy must satisfy: E_ke + E_knu = 20 MeV - not that much. This comes from the difference between electron mass and anti-ud mass. All we need to do is find this kinetic energy experimentally. The measured kinetic energy is a few MeV - not far off the predicted value. The anti-u's spin quantum number is given to the anti-neutrino in the reaction and the electron spin quantum number is copied from that of the down quark. So spin quantum number is conserved. More word salad. Almost sounds like something but means nothing. How can you call this "word salad"? It is as hard and physical as can be.
Talanum46 Posted November 16 Author Report Posted November 16 You haven't explained the Anyon charge - this is the reference of my claim. I will look for the reference. 19 minutes ago, OceanBreeze said: 1 hour ago, Talanum46 said: As for the mass of an electron being smaller than that of a quark: the mass changes to the kinetic energy of the electron and electron anti-neutrino. This means the kinetic energy must satisfy: E_ke + E_knu = 20 MeV - not that much. This comes from the difference between electron mass and anti-ud mass. All we need to do is find this kinetic energy experimentally. The measured kinetic energy is a few MeV - not far off the predicted value. The anti-u's spin quantum number is given to the anti-neutrino in the reaction and the electron spin quantum number is copied from that of the down quark. So spin quantum number is conserved. More word salad. Almost sounds like something but means nothing. How can you call this "word salad"? It is as hard and physical as can be.
Talanum46 Posted November 16 Author Report Posted November 16 (edited) Just look at the Wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anyon. It says Anyons are electrons confined to a plane. See Frank A. Wilczek's papers. Edited November 16 by Talanum46
OceanBreeze Posted November 17 Report Posted November 17 14 hours ago, Talanum46 said: Just look at the Wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anyon. It says Anyons are electrons confined to a plane. See Frank A. Wilczek's papers. Yes! The quasi-particles are electrons, and therefore cannot be sub-particles of electrons. Can you can see that now? What F. Wilczek, and a few others are doing, is magnetically and electrically exciting a part (an island of electrons), of a larger electron system. Although the island is distinguished from the larger electron system via four electrical contacts, the island, together with the larger body of electrons, still comprises an open system. In such an open system, the total potential is fixed, but the number of particles in the island is not. What this means, there is no a priori requirement that the total charge of the island be quantized in units of e, much less in units of 2e, even though the island plus the larger electron system must be. The island charge could change in increments of one quasi-particle charge, such as any small (less than e) charge imbalance, supplied from the electrical contacts. For example, a ∆Q = 2e charge introduced from the contacts can result in the creation of ten e/5 quasi-particles in the island, and at the same time, increase the electronic (negative) charge of the larger body of electrons by precisely 10 e/5 , thus leaving the total population charge unaffected. The above explains how Anyons are collective excitations of many electrons in two dimensional devices. They are artificial quasi-particles which, under very special circumstances, carry fractional electric charge. Finally, Anyons are not elementary particles that comprise a supposed substructure of electrons. Essentially, they act as electrons with fractional charges. The above explanation is extremely over-simplified but contains the basic idea of what Anyons are. Hopefully, this will help clear up some of the misconceptions about Anyons seen in this thread. (But I am more than likely just wasting my time, we shall see)
Talanum46 Posted November 17 Author Report Posted November 17 (edited) I'm not saying that Anyons are sub-electrons, I'm saying they are electrons confined to a plane. If an Anyon is made up of lots of electrons, won't it's charge be > e? In what paper did you see the e/5 charge? You didn't explain Anyon charge, just threw a spanner in the works. Edited November 17 by Talanum46
Recommended Posts