To add comments or start new threads please go to the full version of: Matter Composition.
PhysForum Science, Physics and Technology Discussion Forums > Relativity, Quantum Mechanics and New Theories > Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, New Theories

fivedoughnut
If by smashing particles together why do scientists assume they are fragmenting component parts of the aforementioned.

Now here's a thought...if all these generated particles really exist within. It should make elementary particles super high eV entities....but they're clearly not!

Would anyone like to explain this? dry.gif
Zephir
QUOTE (fivedoughnut+Dec 25 2005, 12:33 PM)
If by smashing particles together why do scientists assume they are fragmenting component parts of the aforementioned.

Well, here are some "subtle" details, which are intricating you presumption "slightly"...

For example, if we "smash" two electrons by the sufficiently hight speed, we'll obtain a mixture of a new particles and fragments, which weren't contained inside the former electrons definitely, as the overall mass of all fragments can surpass the mass of both the electrons significantly...

User posted image

Strange enough, isn'it? ph34r.gif
fivedoughnut
QUOTE (Zephir+Dec 25 2005, 09:54 AM)
QUOTE (fivedoughnut+Dec 25 2005, 12:33 PM)
If by smashing particles together why do scientists assume they are fragmenting component parts of the aforementioned.

Well, here are some "subtle" details, which are intricating you presumption "slightly"...

For example, if we "smash" two electrons by the sufficiently hight speed, we'll obtain a mixture of a new particles and fragments, which weren't contained inside the former electrons definitely, as the overall mass of all fragments can surpass the mass of both the electrons significantly...

User posted image

Strange enough, isn'it? ph34r.gif

Zeph,

Absolutely incredible!!......Happy christmas mate smile.gif
Zephir
QUOTE (fivedoughnut+Dec 25 2005, 01:25 PM)
Happy christmas mate..

The very same to You... smile.gif

Nevertheless, the picture above is part of my very first submissions here. Have look at these amazing videos 1, 2, in particular.
(The mirror of it is located here 1, 2, as the original web has a traffic troubles sometimes). I recommend You to study the vortex fluid mechanic, as it supplies a lot analogies of the real particle behavior. For example, the so called Mrs. Widnall's instability should serve as the model of local symmetry breaking inside of particles, leading to the new particle generations.
Are u curious, how the dimensions are convoluted? Let's see (the marvelous smoke ring picture bellow comes from the one of the last year's New Scientist issues cover)...

user posted image

I'm afraid, I'll have to explain the basic idea's of Aether again and again as long as I live... biggrin.gif
fivedoughnut
Just as I thought, this indicates "no templates required". However, it's a real shame these vortices don't "decay".... reverting back to their original topology.

Thanks for this Zeph', you've really got me thinking!.......very impressive stuff. blink.gif
Zephir
QUOTE (fivedoughnut+Dec 25 2005, 08:59 PM)
..it's a real shame these vortices don't "decay".... reverting back to their original topology...

Well, all particles of visible matter are thermodynamically metastable under contact with vacuum, gradually decomposing to the "radiation". But the expected decay rate exceeds the universe age, at the case of protons or electrons.

But each analogy has its own limits. The vortices of Aether aren't real vortices, just vortex-like multidimensional deformations of Aether. They radiate gravity wave back to itself being quantized like tuned string and such of this they have an exact predefined sizes and torsion angles in each direction.

user posted image user posted image
Laidback
QUOTE (Zephir+Dec 25 2005, 10:55 AM)
QUOTE (fivedoughnut+Dec 25 2005, 01:25 PM)
Happy christmas mate..

The very same to You... smile.gif

Nevertheless, the picture above is part of my very first submissions here. Have look at these amazing videos 1, 2, in particular.
(The mirror of it is located here 1, 2, as the original web has a traffic troubles sometimes). I recommend You to study the vortex fluid mechanic, as it supplies a lot analogies of the real particle behavior. For example, the so called Mrs. Widnall's instability should serve as the model of local symmetry breaking inside of particles, leading to the new particle generations.
Are u curious, how the dimensions are convoluted? Let's see (the marvelous smoke ring picture bellow comes from the one of the last year's New Scientist issues cover)...

user posted image

I'm afraid, I'll have to explain the basic idea's of Aether again and again as long as I live... biggrin.gif

Heres a thought..

There have been around 100 different states Errr~ Yeuck! mad.gif I mean particles detected shortly after a purposeful collision, Particle Physicists label them as you guessed it particles... I wish they got of their butts and applied proper quantum to them with a respective force or charge, but hey that will come in due time as they put two and two together.

The problem is do these particles behave in the same manner as when in the state of being of a whole I.e. what of the fields and the respective charges involved?

Another concern is the environment of collision and as to what effect do the atoms that make up the containment do, as it should be noted every thing even a particle if it is to interact with anything these fields must exist!

I have no doubt the decay of the so called Particle or charge is merely transferred or transmitted by some quantum to what ever containment has been used, and the fact that they are even detected suggests each particle still has a quantum of field that interacts with the detectors. tongue.gif

By the way your beloved Aether is better described using force or defining a quantum to it, as Aether suggests to me an archaic concept is being used unsure.gif
When in fact you may hold key undiscovered phenomenon or solutions.


BTW has anyone noticed that the image above shows particles entagled in a distinct field that has been disrupted at a high velocity?

Perhaps I should suggest at the point of collision in an electron Gun a sufficient nuetralized field should be established laugh.gif

Any ideas if this has been contemplated or not?
Zephir
QUOTE (Laidback+Dec 28 2005, 05:49 AM)
The problem is do these particles behave in the same manner as when in the state of being of a whole

I'm not so sure, if I understand you well - but the Aether vortexes are differing from the water ones - they're formed just by vibrations - the Aether behaves as the very elastic gel or foam rather the fluid. So that the original vibration is spreaded to the number of other ones, but their original energy as the whole retains exactly the same!

The strong nonlinear deformations of vacuum having the character of the mass particles, having the convoluted character (compare to the nonlinear character of pendulum of toroidal deformations of the soft foam), se they're exhibiting inertia with respect for each of other (their waves can interfere). Such nonlinear, curved wave deformation simply behaves as the tiny gyroscopes, the combination of two mutually perpendicular gyroscopes gives a massive 3D particle with respect of rotation. They can interfere with each other at the distance, so they're having a charge.

QUOTE (Laidback+Dec 28 2005, 05:49 AM)
what of the fields and the respective charges involved?

The charge is the simply result of helicity of the inner field motion inside of particles. And if we realize the path of the motion as the knot, we'll obtain an incredible amount of possible combinations, which result to the richness of the particle world (although a most of states haven't a physical meaning, of course).

User posted image

QUOTE (Laidback+Dec 28 2005, 05:49 AM)
your beloved Aether is better described using force or defining a quantum to it?

It can be described easily as the very dense elastic matter, I mean so dense, so that even tiny density deformations of it (wave fluctuations of density) are behaving like the massive particles. The so called quantum effects are result both the wave behavior, both the geometrodynamic behavior of such elastic environment - they cannot be separated from each other, but at the longer distance the geometrodynamic behavior are more pronounced (i.e. general relativity effects), whereas at low distances the such environment behaves more as the wave at the linear (Minkowski) space-time.

The common air behaves like the Aether too, but its geometrodynamic effects is a quite neglectable because of low density - so that even the heavy pressure wave has the rather weak inertia with respect of its environment. form this point of view the water or other fluids have the opposite behavior - they're a quite little compressible, so that the waves of it have the very low density fluctuation effects, too.

user posted image

But you can bring-up some hybrid, which is the high pressure supercritical vapor, for example. It can serve as the good model of Aether, as even the tiny deformation (i.e. pressure/density changes) are able to create the condensation surface - so called (mem)brane, which is able to serve as the environment for the further wave spreading across the newly created dimensions like the water surface. From this point of view the Aether behavior is quite understandable in classical meaning as the common massive environment. But you have always to remember, we are formed by the waves of such environment - so it cannot be observed directly using this waves.
NidStyles
QUOTE (fivedoughnut+Dec 25 2005, 09:33 AM)
If by smashing particles together why do scientists assume they are fragmenting component parts of the aforementioned.

Now here's a thought...if all these generated particles really exist within. It should make elementary particles super high eV entities....but they're clearly not!

Would anyone like to explain this? dry.gif

In current methodology, they are smashing the particles, and then weighing them on a EM matrice of sorts called a mass spectrometer. It's the same principle as weighing photons, and the resident electrons, as well as many other small particles in the quantum world. Although the equipment they are using is much more accurate, and thusly much more complex and expensive.

Here's another answer to that question.
http://van.hep.uiuc.edu/van/qa/section/New...31011091611.htm
fivedoughnut
QUOTE (NidStyles+Dec 28 2005, 07:38 AM)
QUOTE (fivedoughnut+Dec 25 2005, 09:33 AM)
If by smashing particles together why do scientists assume they are fragmenting component parts of the aforementioned.

Now here's a thought...if all these generated particles really exist within. It should make elementary particles super high eV entities....but they're clearly not!

Would anyone like to explain this? dry.gif

In current methodology, they are smashing the particles, and then weighing them on a EM matrice of sorts called a mass spectrometer. It's the same principle as weighing photons, and the resident electrons, as well as many other small particles in the quantum world. Although the equipment they are using is much more accurate, and thusly much more complex and expensive.

Here's another answer to that question.
http://van.hep.uiuc.edu/van/qa/section/New...31011091611.htm

Nidstyles,

Thanks for your efforts however I think you must have "missed the point"

My arguement is simply "if a particle is a composite entity, should not the sum of its component parts (eV) be equal to its unified rest mass (eV)"

I propose that these collision fragments "do not reside inside" but are auto-dynamically formed afresh. dry.gif
NidStyles
^ No. They would have the eV total of the eV from the rest mass, and the eV from the particle that caused the action, minus the amount released from the breaking of the bonded stucture. Is that closer to what you are looking for?

When we cycle up a particle accerator, or "atom smasher", we keep a constant track record of the entire ramp up in eV or mass for the particle being used to do the bombarding, usually neutrons.

Then we take the total velocity of the particles, which is measured throughout the process by the aforementioned process in my previous post, and then we calculate all of that with the resulting mass left after the collision to figure out what came out. This is all tracked using the mass spectrometer, and the various EM methods. This is why the cost is so high on particle factories, and accelerators, because the entire thing is almost nothing but magnets, and shielding. With a shitload of computers tracking every portion of the process.

Mind you for lack of simplicity I can't really explain it without starting to throw up numbers, and the according math to go with them.

As for the origin of my first reply, I was understanding that you wanted to know how they measured it, and how they got those figures. Sorry for the confusion there.
fivedoughnut
QUOTE (NidStyles+Dec 28 2005, 08:28 AM)
^ No. They would have the eV total of the eV from the rest mass, and the eV from the particle that caused the action, minus the amount released from the breaking of the bonded stucture. Is that closer to what you are looking for?

When we cycle up a particle accerator, or "atom smasher", we keep a constant track record of the entire ramp up in eV or mass for the particle being used to do the bombarding, usually neutrons.

Then we take the total velocity of the particles, which is measured throughout the process by the aforementioned process in my previous post, and then we calculate all of that with the resulting mass left after the collision to figure out what came out. This is all tracked using the mass spectrometer, and the various EM methods. This is why the cost is so high on particle factories, and accelerators, because the entire thing is almost nothing but magnets, and shielding. With a shitload of computers tracking every portion of the process.

Mind you for lack of simplicity I can't really explain it without starting to throw up numbers, and the according math to go with them.

As for the origin of my first reply, I was understanding that you wanted to know how they measured it, and how they got those figures. Sorry for the confusion there.




Nidsyles:

No. They would have the eV total of the eV from the rest mass, and the eV from the particle that caused the action, minus the amount released from the breaking of the bonded stucture. Is that closer to what you are looking for?

5-D'nut:

No......If there's bonded structure within it should affect the overall rest mass.

Nidsyles:

Mind you for lack of simplicity I can't really explain it without starting to throw up numbers, and the according math to go with them.

5-D'nut:

Please would you do the math.....If it doesn't match up, wouldn't that be a brilliant start to your new career?....consider it a christmas present! biggrin.gif

Although it would almost certainly "piss off" all the guys at CERN. sad.gif




PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.