Notices
Results 1 to 15 of 15

Thread: "Elementary particles" - aren't elementary?

  1. #1 "Elementary particles" - aren't elementary? 
    New Member
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    2
    Don't let the question mark fool you - the title isn't a question.

    There are so many irritating logical fallacies with current sub-atomic physics that I hardly know where to begin.

    For starters - the idea that the Heisenberg uncertainty principle means that events actually are random. Because we are unable to precisely measure the properties of a given particle - to say nothing of potentially influencing that particle with our measurements - those properties are manifestly uncertain, as opposed to just being unknown? I don't think so!

    My main issue, though, is with the idea that quarks, leptons and bosons are elementary particles. The most basic logical issues with that idea are innumerable.

    • They have properties that are independent of their interactions with other particles and unique to their class - this is logically impossible without substructure, or at least a smaller mediating force.

      There is more than one "elementary" particle. Think about that.


    Well, I suppose they are numerable.

    The inadequecies of the Standard Model seem to have finally caught up with it in searching for the Higgs boson, giving it near-magical properties to explain away the inconsistencies.

    I have a hypothesis, and have had for some time, that both reconciles these issues, does away with ridiculous uncertainty theories and "massless" particles, and provides a solid explanation as to what causes gravity. With more fleshing out, it may also provide a final answer as to the nature of light.

    I'll be back in a few hours to share it. If you'd like to take a crack at anything here, please do and I will answer your question later.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2 Re: "Elementary particles" - aren't elementary? 
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by Deveiel
    Don't let the question mark fool you - the title isn't a question.

    There are so many irritating logical fallacies with current sub-atomic physics that I hardly know where to begin.

    For starters - the idea that the Heisenberg uncertainty principle means that events actually are random. Because we are unable to precisely measure the properties of a given particle - to say nothing of potentially influencing that particle with our measurements - those properties are manifestly uncertain, as opposed to just being unknown? I don't think so!

    My main issue, though, is with the idea that quarks, leptons and bosons are elementary particles. The most basic logical issues with that idea are innumerable.

    • They have properties that are independent of their interactions with other particles and unique to their class - this is logically impossible without substructure, or at least a smaller mediating force.

      There is more than one "elementary" particle. Think about that.


    Well, I suppose they are numerable.

    The inadequecies of the Standard Model seem to have finally caught up with it in searching for the Higgs boson, giving it near-magical properties to explain away the inconsistencies.

    I have a hypothesis, and have had for some time, that both reconciles these issues, does away with ridiculous uncertainty theories and "massless" particles, and provides a solid explanation as to what causes gravity. With more fleshing out, it may also provide a final answer as to the nature of light.

    I'll be back in a few hours to share it. If you'd like to take a crack at anything here, please do and I will answer your question later.
    This unsupported crap belongs in Pseudoscience or New Hypotheses.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3 Re: "Elementary particles" - aren't elementary? 
    Forum Professor Dave Wilson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Northumbria UK
    Posts
    1,028
    Quote Originally Posted by DrRocket
    Don't let the question mark fool you - the title isn't a question.

    There are so many irritating logical fallacies with current sub-atomic physics that I hardly know where to begin.

    For starters - the idea that the Heisenberg uncertainty principle means that events actually are random. Because we are unable to precisely measure the properties of a given particle - to say nothing of potentially influencing that particle with our measurements - those properties are manifestly uncertain, as opposed to just being unknown? I don't think so!

    My main issue, though, is with the idea that quarks, leptons and bosons are elementary particles. The most basic logical issues with that idea are innumerable.

    • They have properties that are independent of their interactions with other particles and unique to their class - this is logically impossible without substructure, or at least a smaller mediating force.

      There is more than one "elementary" particle. Think about that.


    Well, I suppose they are numerable.

    The inadequecies of the Standard Model seem to have finally caught up with it in searching for the Higgs boson, giving it near-magical properties to explain away the inconsistencies.

    I have a hypothesis, and have had for some time, that both reconciles these issues, does away with ridiculous uncertainty theories and "massless" particles, and provides a solid explanation as to what causes gravity. With more fleshing out, it may also provide a final answer as to the nature of light.

    I'll be back in a few hours to share it. If you'd like to take a crack at anything here, please do and I will answer your question later.
    This unsupported crap belongs in Pseudoscience or New Hypotheses.
    You are most certainly correct, but it may be interesting to see what Deveiel comes back with.
    Latinos are Republican. They just don't know it yet.
    Ronald Reagan
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    162
    It is now 06:00 on 5/14. I suppose that Deveiel is discovering - as have many before him - that it takes a bit more than "...a few hours..." to craft a Theory of Everthing.

    For starters - the idea that the Heisenberg uncertainty principle means that events actually are random. Because we are unable to precisely measure the properties of a given particle - to say nothing of potentially influencing that particle with our measurements - those properties are manifestly uncertain, as opposed to just being unknown? I don't think so!
    Does Deveiel's comments mean that the nunerous Nobel Prizes awarded for work directly related to the field of Quantun Mehanics must now be returned? (one might imagine the recipients' profuse apologies for having hoodwinked the Committee)

    Must we now redesign computers since, apparently, the tunneling diode doesn't work?

    I hope Deveil understands Quantum Mechanics better than I do. Most of the time I can't figure out what these Quantum Mechanics guys are talking about. It would be a real disappointment for me if I can't figure out what Deveil is talking about when he explains why the Quantum Mechanics quys are full of crap.

    Chris
    It is difficult to say what is impossible, for the dream of yesterday is the hope of today and the reality of tomorrow.
    Robert H. Goddard - 1904
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5 Sorry.. 
    New Member
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    2
    Sorry folks, it's been a busy couple of weeks and I never got a chance to get back to this thread.

    Anyway, I won't even pretend to have done any solid research, or have any proof of this hypothesis. But.

    The basic units of the universe are simple units of charge. One attracts another, and in the end, they're all flowing in a constant stream of attract-interact-move on. Pools of charge form wherein the quantity of charge leaving the pool achieves equilibrium that coming in, and there you have stable matter.

    Immeasurability of tiny units falls down to simple influence of those units with the methods of measuring, and gravity is the increased exchange of charge between more massive pools.

    EDIT: In light of comments above I'd also like to add that this fully explains the "inexplicable" quantum tunnelling effect. If objects aren't a solid barrier at all but an equilibrium of incoming and outgoing charge, then it's inevitable that a useful form of it is going to eject from a seemingly solid object eventually.

    SECOND EDIT - I would like you to move this to the new hypotheses forum rather than pseudoscience. Give it a chance.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6 Re: Sorry.. 
    Forum Bachelors Degree x(x-y)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    462
    Quote Originally Posted by Deveiel
    gravity is the increased exchange of charge between more massive pools.
    What is this nonsense?
    "Nature doesn't care what we call it, she just does it anyway" - R. Feynman
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Sophomore Eleven's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Dallas,TX
    Posts
    138
    For starters - the idea that the Heisenberg uncertainty principle means that events actually are random. Because we are unable to precisely measure the properties of a given particle - to say nothing of potentially influencing that particle with our measurements - those properties are manifestly uncertain, as opposed to just being unknown? I don't think so!
    Einstein:
    God does not play dice.
    You are in good company.

    Einstein and I believe as you do, but your theory of everything is much too complicated to form in 5 hours.

    As is, I have no confidence in your theory, there is no science.
    Always take hold of things by the smooth handle.

    An enemy generally says and believes what he wishes.

    Thomas Jefferson
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,499
    Quote Originally Posted by Eleven
    Einstein:
    God does not play dice.
    You are in good company.

    Einstein and I believe as you do
    "Einstein, stop telling God what to do with his dice." ~Neils Bohr



    Anyway, the proper quote I've shared below (so, in fact, it's rather clear that you're not quite as aligned with Einstein as you'd like to think):

    Quote Originally Posted by Albert Einstein in a letter to Max Born on 4 December 1926
    Quantum mechanics is certainly imposing. But an inner voice tells me that it is not yet the real thing. The theory says a lot, but does not really bring us any closer to the secret of the "old one." I, at any rate, am convinced that He does not throw dice.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9 Re: "Elementary particles" - aren't elementary? 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    74
    Quote Originally Posted by Deveiel
    My main issue, though, is with the idea that quarks, leptons and bosons are elementary particles. The most basic logical issues with that idea are innumerable.
    Interesting, but let me give you another train of thought, we know of these particles by 'smashing' up atomic particles... hm... Ok, do these particles exist freely in space or just as the result of a collision?

    I have a large piece of flint, I can break it up into pebbles, I can smash them into gravel, I can break gravel into sand..

    My question therefore is; Is flint made of sand?
    "You are only intelligent IF you are surrounded by fools, so don't mock them..." [HOME200]
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    74
    Quote Originally Posted by MeteorWayne
    Sand is made of small particles of minerals. Of many kinds.
    ??

    My question was, "Is flint made of sand?"

    and not "what is sand made of?"
    "You are only intelligent IF you are surrounded by fools, so don't mock them..." [HOME200]
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    74
    I don't agree, some of these particles do not exist in nature but only spring into existence when we smash atomic nuclei, you simply cannot say that an atom is made of them, in the same way, we do not say a stone is made of sand yet if you break one down as far as the naked eye can tell, then sand is what you get. The comparison with a flint stone is purely for those who are not up to scratch with modern nuclear physics. It is simply not good science to say an atom is 'made up of' these partcles, even if smashing one open 'produces' them, and I know of no reputable scientist who would claim this in their work.
    "You are only intelligent IF you are surrounded by fools, so don't mock them..." [HOME200]
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    74
    Quote Originally Posted by MeteorWayne
    Actually, most reputable particle physicists say exactly that. If you don't know that, you obviously have not examined any of their work, or it's way over your head (and I freely admit, a lot of it, but not all, is over my head as well).
    Who? point me to a credible source please. since your counter claim implies you have studied the work of most particle physicists then a list of sources should not be too difficult.
    "You are only intelligent IF you are surrounded by fools, so don't mock them..." [HOME200]
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Sophomore Eleven's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Dallas,TX
    Posts
    138
    it's rather clear that you're not quite as aligned with Einstein as you'd like to think):

    Albert Einstein in a letter to Max Born on 4 December 1926 wrote:
    Quantum mechanics is certainly imposing. But an inner voice tells me that it is not yet the real thing. The theory says a lot, but does not really bring us any closer to the secret of the "old one." I, at any rate, am convinced that He does not throw dice.
    That agrees with me, your inability to see that is troubling.

    some of these particles do not exist in nature but only spring into existence when we smash atomic nuclei,
    How about mesons?

    Edited for respect of poster
    Always take hold of things by the smooth handle.

    An enemy generally says and believes what he wishes.

    Thomas Jefferson
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,499
    You do realize, right, that just because Einstein disliked the idea of quantum mechanics does not in any way, shape, or form mean that it is invalid or somehow wrong, right?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Sophomore Eleven's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Dallas,TX
    Posts
    138
    Yes, correct. I was just responding to:
    it's rather clear that you're not quite as aligned with Einstein as you'd like to think
    This thread shouldn't be about me. My thread is in pseudoscience.

    There are six color quarks. combinations that make white are stable.

    Protons and neutrons have three quarks. Examples:
    A red, yellow, and blue quark.
    An orange, green and purple quark.

    Mesons consist of two quarks.
    They might have a blue and orange quark. A green and red quark. Etc.

    They are less stable, are not useful in nature.

    As far as I know, we don't see them except in high energy collisions.

    edit update:

    MeteorWayne wrote:
    Actually, most reputable particle physicists say exactly that. If you don't know that, you obviously have not examined any of their work, or it's way over your head (and I freely admit, a lot of it, but not all, is over my head as well).
    I would have to agree with MeteorWayne......
    Always take hold of things by the smooth handle.

    An enemy generally says and believes what he wishes.

    Thomas Jefferson
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •