Dimensions of Particles

[Singularitarian]

It was almost four years ago i consulted with a physicist with a question regarding our knowledge of particles. I came to question the validity of pointlike masses, and i asked whether it was all that beneficial to even think of particle masses as being pointlike. I do remember asking whether it was at all possible particles themselves could be tiny pointlike singularities?

My question was answered with a firm ''no'', as they exhibit characterists that singular regions would not. I never questioned it very much afterwards, and whilst i truely did like the idea that particles have charcterists similar to pointlike singularities, i came to conclude the idea was simply rubbish. Two years later, i did raise the issue again with a scientist on the net, who ridiculed my idea as being perfectly psuedoscientific. I do remember trying to defend my theory beside the equally-bizarre idea that electrons themselves could be tiny black holes, which would imply some kind of singularity. But, again, it was dismissed as rubbish.

Because of this reception, i decided to argue that the dimensionless idea for particles was not very rewarding for physicists, (which might subliminally be a reason to why the physicists of the 1980's started meddling with 1-d strings for particles instead). It wasn't rewarding, because we take into account many new attributes of particles we had yet to consider, such as a surface area. Anything with a radius (and whilst correct measurements of the electrons radius vary), should have some kind of surface area. If it has a surface area, then logically it has some width, and therefore dimension, for how could dimensionless objects make up paradoxically a three dimensional world of matter and energy? Are we to believe it is only in union between two dimensionless objects can some kind of dimensionality appear?

Having some kind of dimension to them though, has great advantages. No longer would spin be considered angular momentum, but it would be classically-viewed with the original concept of a real spin.
I came to the conclusion that if quantum mechanics was right so far, concerning the energy density of the vacuum, the hidden virtual energy which has a specific stress energy tension on spacetime, then there must be an associated pressure, according to the Reynolds Equation.

Using calculations, it was possible to suggest that a quantum aether (which superceeded the luminferous aether since the 90's in discovery of the Casimir Force) and this pressure would be exerted on the surface area of particles, which must be considered with some kind of dimension, rather than being pointlike. Evidently, i became to believe that the structure we have for particles was entirely wrong. Then today, i read a science paper, which corresponded to my first ever inquiry into the structure of particles, and how they could actually be singularities:

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009arXiv0906.4801C

''Taking the symplectic 4 form - the volume element in the 8- spinor phase space- as a natural Lagrangian, these singularities turn out to have rest energies within a few percent of the observed particle masses.''

Here i have qouted the important part. The initial reason why my conjecture was not taken seriously is because of the observable eigstates which would differ. According to this particle, particle singularities actually have observables very close to the prediction of the standard model. My question is, do you think particles are pointlike, or should they have some kind of structure/dimension(s)?

 

[Aepervius]

As far as I remember from basic particle (electron, neutron, proton), only the electron is defined as a point like particle. This is because from some experiments we can place some upper limit on the elctron size, and at that upper limit there is no point to cinsider them having a radius for the purpose of calculation/theory for most experiment. The otehr are defined with a radius which is roughly in the order of femtometer.

Evidently, i became to believe that the structure we have for particles was entirely wrong.

Never mind. That is one of the sign. *tip toe out*

 

[Darth Rotor]

No longer would spin be considered angular momentum, but it would be classically-viewed with the original concept of a real spin.
I came to the conclusion that if quantum mechanics was right so far, concerning the energy density of the vacuum, the hidden virtual energy which has a specific stress energy tension on spacetime, then there must be an associated pressure, according to the Reynolds Equation.

?

Hmm, a Reynolds number for a dimension n the 1 x 10^-12 range?

Not only won't that float, it may not have any means of self propulsion.

DR

 

[Dorfl]

Having some kind of dimension to them though, has great advantages. No longer would spin be considered angular momentum, but it would be classically-viewed with the original concept of a real spin.

If I remember correctly, isn't it fairly easy to demonstrate that quantum spin cannot be due to actual rotation of a particle, because that would require most particles to rotate faster than light to match observations?

 

[Singularitarian]

If I remember correctly, isn't it fairly easy to demonstrate that quantum spin cannot be due to actual rotation of a particle, because that would require most particles to rotate faster than light to match observations?

Just to answer also the person who said that pointlike objects only classify for electrons, is not entirely true. The idea that spin cannot be an actually rotational spin is for all fermions, not just electrons, and this is due to exactly the point made in this post. You cannot have a real spin, because for a pointlike object to rotate back to their original orientations would require to make [latex]720^o[/latex], so it would need to spin twice as fast, meaning it would also have to spin faster than the speed of light, which is currently not allowed.

 

[Singularitarian]

Hmm, a Reynolds number for a dimension n the 1 x 10^-12 range?

Not only won't that float, it may not have any means of self propulsion.

DR

I came to realize though, that even the Reynolds equations has unknown factors in them. Let me demonstrate for you how this works.

If there is a moving liquid, then there is a force exerted on the surface area of the object. This can be given as a relation to an unknown function with possible candidates given as:

[latex]f(F,u,A, \rho,v)=0[/latex] [1]

The reynolds number allows to give some idea what causes this pressure, howsoever, the reynolds number and the equation itself is not entirely known.The Buckingham Pi Theorem states that there are many forms in which one can take equation [1] to make it dimensionless, but it will take on two main groups, that being the Reynolds number [latex]R_e= u \sqrt{A}/ v[/latex] and the drag coefficient, given as [latex]C_D=F/ \rho AU^2[/latex], so essentially one has:

[latex]f(C_D=F/ \rho AU^2, R_e= u \sqrt{A}/ v) =0[/latex]

with some rearranging one aquires:

[latex]F=\rho Au^2f(R_e)[/latex]

So the force is multiplied by some unknown function of the reynolds number. In speculation of all of this, one might need some of the general idea's behind the reynolds number for particles if we are to take quantum mechanics seriously for non-zero dimensional particles.

 

[Mr.D]

Just to answer also the person who said that pointlike objects only classify for electrons, is not entirely true. The idea that spin cannot be an actually rotational spin is for all fermions, not just electrons, and this is due to exactly the point made in this post. You cannot have a real spin, because for a pointlike object to rotate back to their original orientations would require to make

, so it would need to spin twice as fast, meaning it would also have to spin faster than the speed of light, which is currently not allowed.

Nominated.

 

[Singularitarian]

Mr D, i speak absolute science. So i don't understand your attitude.

Secondly, i said ''currently allowed'' because there is nothing remarkable about theories changing. It happens all the time. For instance, a particle might be able to spin faster than light, if it were a tachyon, for instance.

 

[Singularitarian]

And to prove you wrong, just to nail it in the coffin, so to say;

'' Spin and similar rotations in normal space are quantized into unit angular momentum chunks because a single (or multiple) rotational flip through 360o cannot be distinguished from no rotation at all. In the same way, motion completely around a K-K loop brings you back to where you started, and this analogously leads to quantization of electric charge. The size of the unit charge and the strength of the electric force are inversely proportional to the distance around the loop: the smaller the loop, the larger is a unit charge. ''

http://www.npl.washington.edu/AV/altvw06.html

 

[Singularitarian]

Oh, and look MR D

'The satisfaction did not last long. In the 1930's it was discovered that electrons violated angular momentum quantization. Electrons were found to have an irreducible angular momentum, called spin, of 1/2 an h/2pi unit. The electron, behaving like a tiny top that cannot be stopped from spinning, is said to be a "spin 1/2 particle". This means that the wave function of an electron does not come back to the same quantum state when it is rotated by 360o, but only when it is rotated by twice 360o or 720o. The same is true for protons, neutrons, and other spin 1/2 particles.


In other words, the world you view after turning your body by 360o is not the same world as before your rotation. All spin 1/2 particles in the universe will have the algebraic signs of their wave functions reversed by your action. You have to make another 360o rotation to put the world back the way it was. There are few directly observable effects of this sign reversal, but it is nevertheless a bizarre and counter-intuitive result. We have no idea where these half integer spins come from or why most fundamental particles have them, yet they do.'

http://www.npl.washington.edu/AV/altvw77.html

 

[Mr.D]

i speak absolute science.

I'll agree you use much of the vocabulary of science, but your other threads have shown you to be - I'll be charitable here - less than clear in communicating in the languages of science.

Secondly, i said ''currently allowed'' because there is nothing remarkable about theories changing. It happens all the time. For instance, a particle might be able to spin faster than light, if it were a tachyon, for instance.

Even if that's what you meant, it still makes no sense in the context of Dorfl's post regarding interpreting the spin of a particle as the classical angular momentum of a rotating three-dimensional object.

 

[Singularitarian]

Actually, i think you will find it has everything to do with the classical view. A zero-point dimensional object cannot have a normal orientation of spin. Something which is pointlike, cannot exist for a 360 degree spin back to original orientation.

 

[Mr.D]

Oh, and look MR D

'The satisfaction did not last long. In the 1930's it was discovered that electrons violated angular momentum quantization. Electrons were found to have an irreducible angular momentum, called spin, of 1/2 an h/2pi unit. The electron, behaving like a tiny top that cannot be stopped from spinning, is said to be a "spin 1/2 particle". This means that the wave function of an electron does not come back to the same quantum state when it is rotated by 360o, but only when it is rotated by twice 360o or 720o. The same is true for protons, neutrons, and other spin 1/2 particles.

I finished all the coursework for a Ph.D in physics some 15 years ago (I changed career paths before finishing my dissertation), so your quoting a UW web page neither impresses me nor convinces me you are actually understanding what you read.

How does one interpret noninteger spin for a multidimensional quantum particle as classical angular momentum without running into the relativistic problems Dorfl pointed out? (Recalling of course the deviation of magnetic moment of the electron from classical QM)

And your sidetrack into fluid dynamics? I can't even come up with an analogy for how out of nowhere that came.

 

[Singularitarian]

Ah, good, someone who should know better.

Do you know doctor Cramer, and his work? He's very intelligent, very, inquisitive. If you do not believe what you read, then sir, that is your fault. The page is clearly authentic, not to mind Cramer has dedicated around 50 similar pages to the Alternate View Column, you should read them.

I'll get back to the rest of your questions in a few minutes.

 

[RussDill]

Due to quantum uncertainty, it doesn't really matter if the particle is point like, a singularity, a black hole, or whatever.

However, its when you try to apply some structure to the particle that you run into problems. If the structure can't deform, you get superluminal transmission of information. If it deforms, than you have the question of what is deforming, and the conclusion that electron (a) can differ from electron (b) in more than just spin. You have a lot of explaining to do if you want to assign a structure.

At the end of the day, if you can come up with a self consistent theory that makes testable predictions, have at it. However, it seems that you are just examining your own navel lint.

So? What is your testable prediction?

 

[Singularitarian]

Due to quantum uncertainty, it doesn't really matter if the particle is point like, a singularity, a black hole, or whatever.

However, its when you try to apply some structure to the particle that you run into problems. If the structure can't deform, you get superluminal transmission of information. If it deforms, than you have the question of what is deforming, and the conclusion that electron (a) can differ from electron (b) in more than just spin. You have a lot of explaining to do if you want to assign a structure.

At the end of the day, if you can come up with a self consistent theory that makes testable predictions, have at it. However, it seems that you are just examining your own navel lint.

So? What is your testable prediction?

By ''deform'', what is meant?

 

[Mr.D]

Do you know doctor Cramer, and his work? He's very intelligent, very, inquisitive. If you do not believe what you read, then sir, that is your fault. The page is clearly authentic, not to mind Cramer has dedicated around 50 similar pages to the Alternate View Column, you should read them.

The two links you provided are to articles that are almost 15 and 25 years old. But I took a very quick glance - nothing that looks too egregiously wrong for "Analog - Science Fiction and Fact Magazine" articles of that vintage.

But the articles don't seem to have any real relevance to your ideas other than to point out a few of the seemingly odd properties of the Standard Model.

 

[Ziggurat]

By ''deform'', what is meant?

Change shape.

 

[ben m]

Dorfl never pointed that out.

He did, and you replied quoting it: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=5015337#post5015337

If the vacuum contains an energy, there must be an associated pressure. That is pure physics man.

That is only true in the strong-equivalence-principle sense---i.e. only in General Relativity.

If you mean "pressure" in terms of "something that exerts a force on an area", then no, vacuum energy does not need to exert a force. The electromagnetic component of vacuum energy does cannot exert a force on electrically neutral particles. The quark/gluon component of the vacuum energy cannot exert a force on leptons. And so on.

In any case, in cases where the vacuum can exert a force, that force cannot look like hydrodynamics. Why not? Because hydrodynamics is not Lorentz invariant. There's always a velocity term---"the relative velocity between the object and the fluid"---which is nonsense if the "fluid" is the vacuum. The real vacuum manages to have an energy density while still being Lorentz invariant.

 

[RussDill]

By ''deform'', what is meant?

If an electron had a surface area and an internal volume, then any interaction on one part of the particle would need to travel to other parts of the particle. For instance, if momentum were imparted. If the interaction occurred across the whole particle simultaneously, then superluminal communication would be occurring.

Otherwise, when momentum is imparted, the shape of the particle would need to temporarily deform (change shape).