Board index › Topical Discussion › Computers, Math, Science, and Technology

CALLING ALL PHYSICISTS: Is atomic theory almost wrong?

Page 3 of 3 [ 39 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3

Previous topic | Next topic

Feralucce
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Feb 2012
Age: 52
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,143
Location: New Orleans, LA

05 Feb 2014, 12:27 pm

JSBACHlover wrote:
It is thought that there must be "smallest particles," because without some finite form (that can be described mathematically), matter cannot exist.

However, what if I propose that the smallest material unity is of a form which can be represented by various numerical assignments in a set of qualities (i.e., mass, charge, spin, superstring dimension, etc.) according to the following rule: That the elements of such a set are comprised of a listing of two possibilities: either 0 or the least real number >0?


Not at all... we keep finding smaller particles and some quantum particles are actually bigger than others... but we are only restricted by the plank length (which is (1.616199(97))×10−35 meters)... we have NEVER come close to finding a particle that small.


_________________
Yeah. I'm done. Don't bother messaging and expecting a response - i've left WP permanently.


JSBACHlover
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Oct 2013
Age: 57
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,282

05 Feb 2014, 5:28 pm

As I said above, I had forgotten about the Planck length. So what I was conjecturing is, strictly speaking, not useful, because space and dimensionality have no meaning if < 1.6 ×10−35 m. On the positive side of things, this leads me to suspect that /h, along with c, would likely be necessary constant for a unified field theory, even if no wavicle of such a scale were to exist.



Feralucce
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Feb 2012
Age: 52
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,143
Location: New Orleans, LA

05 Feb 2014, 6:40 pm

Let's just say that the plank unit is... IMPOSSIBLY small...

However, quantum particles don't seem to obey the concept of size as we understand it. Most of them are actually measured by the amount of energy that they carry, measured in kilovolts. They will move in odd patterns, some winking in and out and into existence in their tracks in the detectors.

It has been posited, since m-theory is prevalent, that we live in an 11th dimensional universe (one of those being the higgs field), and as such mass and motion can be along those extra dimensions...

However, that being said, we are nowhere near finding as small as things can get.


_________________
Yeah. I'm done. Don't bother messaging and expecting a response - i've left WP permanently.


JSBACHlover
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Oct 2013
Age: 57
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,282

05 Feb 2014, 7:40 pm

Yes, M Theory. I'm familiar with it and some of Witten's work. Normally, in order to define something, we must set limits within the thing's definition. It would seem likely therefore that /h would be involved in the defining of a fundamental particle, even if no particle exists at that scale.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 89
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

05 Feb 2014, 9:09 pm

JSBACHlover wrote:
Yes, M Theory. I'm familiar with it and some of Witten's work. Normally, in order to define something, we must set limits within the thing's definition. It would seem likely therefore that /h would be involved in the defining of a fundamental particle, even if no particle exists at that scale.


M theory and String Theory do not have an ounce of empirical corroboration. As far as we know they are fancy mathematics and speculation.

I am one of the old fashioned types who does not equate mathematical beauty with empirical correctness. I want to see the lab results and the measurements.

ruveyn



Feralucce
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Feb 2012
Age: 52
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,143
Location: New Orleans, LA

05 Feb 2014, 10:50 pm

ruveyn wrote:
JSBACHlover wrote:
Yes, M Theory. I'm familiar with it and some of Witten's work. Normally, in order to define something, we must set limits within the thing's definition. It would seem likely therefore that /h would be involved in the defining of a fundamental particle, even if no particle exists at that scale.


M theory and String Theory do not have an ounce of empirical corroboration. As far as we know they are fancy mathematics and speculation.

I am one of the old fashioned types who does not equate mathematical beauty with empirical correctness. I want to see the lab results and the measurements.

ruveyn

Mathematics that predicted all of the particles being found in the LHC


_________________
Yeah. I'm done. Don't bother messaging and expecting a response - i've left WP permanently.


eric76
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Aug 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,660
Location: In the heart of the dust bowl

09 Feb 2014, 5:36 pm

Feralucce wrote:
JSBACHlover wrote:
It is thought that there must be "smallest particles," because without some finite form (that can be described mathematically), matter cannot exist.

However, what if I propose that the smallest material unity is of a form which can be represented by various numerical assignments in a set of qualities (i.e., mass, charge, spin, superstring dimension, etc.) according to the following rule: That the elements of such a set are comprised of a listing of two possibilities: either 0 or the least real number >0?


Not at all... we keep finding smaller particles and some quantum particles are actually bigger than others... but we are only restricted by the plank length (which is (1.616199(97))×10−35 meters)... we have NEVER come close to finding a particle that small.


As I understand it, we have experimentally detected particles that small -- the quantum foam created when matter, possibly including black holes, pop in and out of existence.

That said, it would be pretty much impossible to identify particles that small and distinguish them from other particles that small.