Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 40

Thread: particles

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Wisconsin USA
    Posts
    2,797

    particles

    The more I look at particles, the more convinced I become that particles are different orbitals of the same thing, just like the electron and proton. Does anyone else see this. I see there is evidence for this for the nucleus. http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...ear/shell.html
    The moment an instant lasted forever, we were destined for the leading edge of eternity.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    7,122
    Well, some are. Like these: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...ance_particles
    String theory kind of says particles are just excited states of fundamental strings.

    But apart from that - evidence and theory are what is missing. People get convinced about all kinds of things, and see all kinds of patterns. Just because someone thinks something looks a bit like something else, or looks like there should be a pattern there doesn't really mean much.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    location
    Posts
    12,410
    Would dark matter and dark energy be particles on really, staggeringly large orbitals with radii of millions of lightyears?
    Et tu BAUT? Quantum mutatus ab illo.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Depew, NY
    Posts
    11,768
    Baryonic dark matter seems to be "boring stuff" like black holes and faint stars. Non-baryonic dark matter can also be equally "boring". Neutrinos and such. Neither of these option seem to "the solution" to describing all dark matter, so maybe the answer isn't that boring.
    Solfe

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Wisconsin USA
    Posts
    2,797
    Quote Originally Posted by Ara Pacis View Post
    Would dark matter and dark energy be particles on really, staggeringly large orbitals with radii of millions of lightyears?
    Apparently dark matter only interacts with gravity so that would be completely different. Dark energy, yuck, can't get my head around that.
    The moment an instant lasted forever, we were destined for the leading edge of eternity.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    7,122
    Quote Originally Posted by Copernicus View Post
    Apparently dark matter only interacts with gravity so that would be completely different. Dark energy, yuck, can't get my head around that.
    And leptons only interact via the weak force and gravity. But apparently you don't think they are completely different to quarks...

    Think this nicely highlights how the patterns one person 'spots' can fail to be so obvious to someone else.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    4,171
    Quote Originally Posted by Copernicus View Post
    The more I look at particles, the more convinced I become that particles are different orbitals of the same thing, just like the electron and proton. Does anyone else see this.
    Orbitals are particle positions and do not change their fundamental properties such as charge, mass or spin.
    The similarity you are seeing is a result of electrons and protons being in potential wells. That leads to discrete energy levels and a shell structure.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Wisconsin USA
    Posts
    2,797
    Quote Originally Posted by Shaula View Post
    And leptons only interact via the weak force and gravity. But apparently you don't think they are completely different to quarks...

    Think this nicely highlights how the patterns one person 'spots' can fail to be so obvious to someone else.
    Hi Shaula,

    Good point, although I'm not sure if it was my lack of preciseness is what you are referring to. For the orbitals of the proton and electron I was referring to the orbitals of the electron about the nucleus.

    In regards to the nucleus having some type of orbital structure this is a question of mine. Lets say that there are orbitals in the nucleus between the protons and neutrons, in this scenario would it imply that there really is no strong force or gluons as it would may imply that the force between two protons would be neutralized by the distance between the negative and positive quarks. Or would the gluons be exchanged when the quarks would move to lower or higher orbital levels.
    Last edited by Copernicus; 2017-Nov-28 at 05:22 AM.
    The moment an instant lasted forever, we were destined for the leading edge of eternity.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    7,122
    Quote Originally Posted by Copernicus View Post
    In regards to the nucleus having some type of orbital structure this is a question of mine. Lets say that there are orbitals in the nucleus between the protons and neutrons, in this scenario would it imply that there really is no strong force or gluons as it would may imply that the force between two protons would be neutralized by the distance between the negative and positive quarks. Or would the gluons be exchanged when the quarks would move to lower or higher orbital levels.
    Sorry but you need to be way more precise about what you are talking about - I am struggling to understand the concepts you have in your mind here!

    The nucleus has a shell structure, as per the link you gave. That is why we have magic number nuclei. It doesn't remove the need for the strong force. And before you were talking about elementary particles actually being different configurations of some underlying system. I think. Now you seem to be talking about something else again. It might help, in each case, if you set down exactly: What particles you think are taking part in the structure, What kind of structure you are talking about, What system you then think this is describing. So for example:
    - Electrons in orbitals explain atomic bonding and spectral lines relating to atoms
    - Nucleons in a shell structure explain nuclear stability and are related to radioactive decay rates
    - Quarks in excited spin states explain baryon resonances

    I have a feeling, and this may be unjustified, that you are picturing a simplified version of these phenomena and relating them because some bits of them 'look the same'

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Wisconsin USA
    Posts
    2,797
    By shell structure for the nucleus are you saying that there are orbitals for the nucleus?
    The moment an instant lasted forever, we were destined for the leading edge of eternity.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Posts
    6,062
    Quote Originally Posted by Copernicus View Post
    By shell structure for the nucleus are you saying that there are orbitals for the nucleus?
    They are at least analogous, yes.
    Conserve energy. Commute with the Hamiltonian.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Metrowest, Boston
    Posts
    4,728
    Quote Originally Posted by Grey View Post
    They are at least analogous, yes.
    Grey. Yep, one of the most commonly neglected pieces of physics/chemistry courses in high schools. Students usually get drilled on quantum numbers in the chemistry program, and are aware that Rutherford's scattering experiments with gold foil demonstrated a rationale for a nucleus....but that model of a static nucleus with little balls of neutrons and protons glued together is all too hard to unseat for lots of teachers. Always a worthwhile diversion from the text, if necessary to bring in Maria Goeppert-Meyer's work to make them wonder about nuclear structure, and ultimately, hadron structure. A quick primer on scattering experiments, with fluxes, cross-sections, and data reduction makes a good winter course for January break. pete


    SEE:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maria_Goeppert-Mayer
    Last edited by trinitree88; 2017-Nov-30 at 05:21 PM. Reason: link

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    7,122
    Quote Originally Posted by Copernicus View Post
    By shell structure for the nucleus are you saying that there are orbitals for the nucleus?
    Um, the link you gave in the first post was about this shell structure! Electron orbitals and Nuclear shells are both examples of quantum systems confined in potential wells.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Wisconsin USA
    Posts
    2,797
    Quote Originally Posted by trinitree88 View Post
    Grey. Yep, one of the most commonly neglected pieces of physics/chemistry courses in high schools. Students usually get drilled on quantum numbers in the chemistry program, and are aware that Rutherford's scattering experiments with gold foil demonstrated a rationale for a nucleus....but that model of a static nucleus with little balls of neutrons and protons glued together is all too hard to unseat for lots of teachers. Always a worthwhile diversion from the text, if necessary to bring in Maria Goeppert-Meyer's work to make them wonder about nuclear structure, and ultimately, hadron structure. A quick primer on scattering experiments, with fluxes, cross-sections, and data reduction makes a good winter course for January break. pete


    SEE:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maria_Goeppert-Mayer
    Its been a long time since I took physics and I don't remember any talk of shell structure of the nucleus.
    The moment an instant lasted forever, we were destined for the leading edge of eternity.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Wisconsin USA
    Posts
    2,797
    How incredibly complex it would be to actually figure out what must be going on inside the nucleus!
    The moment an instant lasted forever, we were destined for the leading edge of eternity.

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    location
    Posts
    12,410
    Quote Originally Posted by Copernicus View Post
    Apparently dark matter only interacts with gravity so that would be completely different. Dark energy, yuck, can't get my head around that.
    Well, sure. If one were to try to expand on that model, then perhaps particles on those orbitals wouldn't have the right energy to interact if they were on the quantum version of Molniya orbits. With a huge gap in energy between nuclear apapsis and periapsis, the chance that it would have an energy that fit the valence of some other nucleus with which it was in communication/contact would be nigh zero.
    Et tu BAUT? Quantum mutatus ab illo.

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Wisconsin USA
    Posts
    2,797
    Quote Originally Posted by Ara Pacis View Post
    Well, sure. If one were to try to expand on that model, then perhaps particles on those orbitals wouldn't have the right energy to interact if they were on the quantum version of Molniya orbits. With a huge gap in energy between nuclear apapsis and periapsis, the chance that it would have an energy that fit the valence of some other nucleus with which it was in communication/contact would be nigh zero.
    Are you talking about Molniya orbits being similar to dark matter orbits. I thought orbitals weren't even orbits.
    The moment an instant lasted forever, we were destined for the leading edge of eternity.

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    7,122
    Quote Originally Posted by Copernicus View Post
    Are you talking about Molniya orbits being similar to dark matter orbits. I thought orbitals weren't even orbits.
    They aren't orbits, you are right.

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    location
    Posts
    12,410
    Quote Originally Posted by Copernicus View Post
    Are you talking about Molniya orbits being similar to dark matter orbits. I thought orbitals weren't even orbits.
    I know. But we're talking about Dark Matter, which we don't understand, so...

    EDIT: I'm not saying it's an orbit in the Keplerian sense, I'm saying the electron shell may be shaped in a way that when compared to planetary orbits might resemble or behave like a Molniya orbit. I'm also wondering if the astronomical distances involved means that it has to behave differently, with regard to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle and localization, because of the limits of communication to light speed (assuming it's limited to light speed).
    Last edited by Ara Pacis; 2017-Dec-01 at 04:51 PM.
    Et tu BAUT? Quantum mutatus ab illo.

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    14,782
    I think that comparing electron or nuclear orbitals to specific types
    of orbits such as Molniya orbits is a bridge too far. Orbitals and orbits
    are comparable in that things are flying around with momentum and
    kinetic energy, yet bound together by various forces, and in the fact
    that there can be lightweight things flying around a central heavy
    thing, but shapes of orbits don't have any relation at all to shapes of
    orbitals, so one shouldn't imply that they might.

    -- Jeff, in Minneapolis

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    location
    Posts
    12,410
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff Root View Post
    I think that comparing electron or nuclear orbitals to specific types
    of orbits such as Molniya orbits is a bridge too far. Orbitals and orbits
    are comparable in that things are flying around with momentum and
    kinetic energy, yet bound together by various forces, and in the fact
    that there can be lightweight things flying around a central heavy
    thing, but shapes of orbits don't have any relation at all to shapes of
    orbitals, so one shouldn't imply that they might.

    -- Jeff, in Minneapolis
    This model would be for Dark Matter and perhaps connected to Dark Energy, so the rules might be different.

    Or maybe I didn't explain my thought well enough, which was just a thought experiment anyway. The broader effects of dark matter are low interaction, only by gravity, and only noticeable at cosmic scales: So, if we posit that it's connected to luminous matter (extrapolation of the OP), and if the region of probability is limited by light speed (is it in the standard model?), then it would have a distance from the nucleus so large that the region of probability might itself be discrete at that scale. If so, then what shape would the region of probability look like? Would it be a long barbell, with the nucleus at one end and the dark matter at the other? Would it be sphere? Would it be pear-shaped? Does the region of probability stay in one fixed location with relation to the nucleus, or would it move? Since Dark Matter is low interaction and appears to only be via gravity, then might it not be too far fetched to think that gravity is the force that governs its location and movement, with regard to the nucleus to which it is bound? If so, then we might arrive at the idea that it moves in a trajectory with relationship to the nucleus. Or to put it in terms already in use, orbitals in orbit.
    Et tu BAUT? Quantum mutatus ab illo.

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Wisconsin USA
    Posts
    2,797
    Quote Originally Posted by Ara Pacis View Post
    This model would be for Dark Matter and perhaps connected to Dark Energy, so the rules might be different.

    Or maybe I didn't explain my thought well enough, which was just a thought experiment anyway. The broader effects of dark matter are low interaction, only by gravity, and only noticeable at cosmic scales: So, if we posit that it's connected to luminous matter (extrapolation of the OP), and if the region of probability is limited by light speed (is it in the standard model?), then it would have a distance from the nucleus so large that the region of probability might itself be discrete at that scale. If so, then what shape would the region of probability look like? Would it be a long barbell, with the nucleus at one end and the dark matter at the other? Would it be sphere? Would it be pear-shaped? Does the region of probability stay in one fixed location with relation to the nucleus, or would it move? Since Dark Matter is low interaction and appears to only be via gravity, then might it not be too far fetched to think that gravity is the force that governs its location and movement, with regard to the nucleus to which it is bound? If so, then we might arrive at the idea that it moves in a trajectory with relationship to the nucleus. Or to put it in terms already in use, orbitals in orbit.
    I don't really know anything about this. Are there some articles or papers to explain it more.
    The moment an instant lasted forever, we were destined for the leading edge of eternity.

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    location
    Posts
    12,410
    Quote Originally Posted by Copernicus View Post
    I don't really know anything about this. Are there some articles or papers to explain it more.
    Papers? I was just riffing on your OP.
    Et tu BAUT? Quantum mutatus ab illo.

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Wisconsin USA
    Posts
    2,797
    Quote Originally Posted by Ara Pacis View Post
    Papers? I was just riffing on your OP.
    Are SIMP's similar to your idea? https://m.phys.org/news/2017-12-mach...say-simps.html
    The moment an instant lasted forever, we were destined for the leading edge of eternity.

  25. #25
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    location
    Posts
    12,410
    I suppose they could be. I was merely proposing the idea of dark matter particles being bound to a luminous matter nucleus. The idea of SIMPs does not appear to rule against it. It might even explain the reason for the large distance from the nucleus - lack of room. Whether or not the dark matter particle orbits the nucleus and moves on a trajectory is up in the air with this. There could be a system where particles manage to push through other particles to move on their trajectory, perhaps due to the size or mass of the nucleus to which they are bound. Or, they might just be relatively stuck in distant space, like balloons on strings bouncing off each other in a clump, clutched by a person trying to push through a crowd of people who are also clutching clumps of balloons. Slow going that would be.
    Et tu BAUT? Quantum mutatus ab illo.

  26. #26
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Wisconsin USA
    Posts
    2,797
    Chalk one up for copernicus. https://phys.org/news/2019-06-eviden...cule-like.html New evidence from LHC shows pentaquark has a molecule-like structure
    The moment an instant lasted forever, we were destined for the leading edge of eternity.

  27. #27
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    a long way away
    Posts
    10,638
    Quote Originally Posted by Copernicus View Post
    Chalk one up for copernicus. https://phys.org/news/2019-06-eviden...cule-like.html New evidence from LHC shows pentaquark has a molecule-like structure
    I can't see any possible connection with your original claim that all "particles are different orbitals of the same thing" which, from the following discussion, seemed to be based on a misunderstanding of the fact that both electrons and nucleons are arranged in a shell structure. But that is not what this research shows. That article is incredibly vague and confusing, the paper is way over my head, but the bottom line seems to be that the quarks in a pentagram quark are (can be) arranged as a group of 2 and a group of 3. Not a shell.

    Can you explain how you think this means "one up for copernicus"?

  28. #28
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Wisconsin USA
    Posts
    2,797
    My thought is that quarks can form an orbital like arrangement which would suggest that they could also form molecules. That's all.
    The moment an instant lasted forever, we were destined for the leading edge of eternity.

  29. #29
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    a long way away
    Posts
    10,638
    Quote Originally Posted by Copernicus View Post
    My thought is that quarks can form an orbital like arrangement which would suggest that they could also form molecules. That's all.
    That is a huge leap, and not supported by that paper.

  30. #30
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    1,968
    If dark matter only interacts with gravity, shouldn't its overwhelming presence affect orbital velocity of matter in accretion disks around black holes?
    I suppose we haven't got good enough data to look for an effect yet. Being non-collisional, you'd expect dark matter to be enriched in such disks even beyond its universal average of 80% of all matter.

Posting Permissions

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