Go Back   Physics Help Forum > College/University Physics Help > Theoretical Physics

Theoretical Physics Theoretical Physics Help Forum

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old Nov 27th 2013, 06:54 AM   #1
Senior Member
 
Troll's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Under a bridge, Tampa, Florida USA
Posts: 157
Dissection of the universe

Can we assume that an entity which can have more than one "form" must be composed of more primitive entities?
__________________
Deception is a complex concept which the human mind is unable to resolve...
Troll is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 27th 2013, 09:47 AM   #2
Forum Admin
 
topsquark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: On the dance floor, baby!
Posts: 2,382
Originally Posted by Troll View Post
Can we assume that an entity which can have more than one "form" must be composed of more primitive entities?
Any entity that is made from more than one object will have some kind of volume. For example protons cannot be an elementary particle because it has an average size associated with it: about 1.5 x 10^{-41} m^3. High energy experiments have detected "partons" inside of it. We believe these partons are quarks and gluons.

-Dan
__________________
Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.

See the forum rules here.
topsquark is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 27th 2013, 09:58 AM   #3
Senior Member
 
Troll's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Under a bridge, Tampa, Florida USA
Posts: 157
Originally Posted by topsquark View Post
Any entity that is made from more than one object will have some kind of volume. For example protons cannot be an elementary particle because it has an average size associated with it: about 1.5 x 10^{-41} m^3. High energy experiments have detected "partons" inside of it. We believe these partons are quarks and gluons.

-Dan
Using any frame of reference you wish, are you able to express your feelings about how much further the quark would have to be dissected to find the most primitive constituent?
__________________
Deception is a complex concept which the human mind is unable to resolve...
Troll is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 27th 2013, 11:32 AM   #4
Forum Admin
 
topsquark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: On the dance floor, baby!
Posts: 2,382
Originally Posted by Troll View Post
Using any frame of reference you wish, are you able to express your feelings about how much further the quark would have to be dissected to find the most primitive constituent?
At this point we really can't measure it well, but I have read that high energy scattering experiments have been conducted that shows that there are no components inside of quarks. On the other hand it is miserably difficult to do such an experiment. (And the quark model says we can't isolate an individual quark anyway. The experiments are on-going.)

String theory will be a good test-bed for this as it can predict the properties of the string vibration that a quark is made from (assuming the theory is correct anyway), but we lack the ability to do such experiments. It may be 10 years or more before we can get a good handle on the technology. And if String theory is wrong I don't believe we currently have a good theory to test in its wake.

To sum it up, it's going to be a long while before we can come up with a definitive answer but so far the quark model, which predicts point quarks, has been validated.

Now if you want to try to sink your teeth into it, the weak intermediate vector bosons (the W+, W-, and Z0 particles) have had no constituent measurements taken and there have been a few attempts to propose that they are made of something more fundamental...which implies that the photon might be made of something more fundamental as well.

-Dan
__________________
Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.

See the forum rules here.
topsquark is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 27th 2013, 12:08 PM   #5
Senior Member
 
Troll's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Under a bridge, Tampa, Florida USA
Posts: 157
Originally Posted by topsquark View Post
At this point we really can't measure it well, but I have read that high energy scattering experiments have been conducted that shows that there are no components inside of quarks. On the other hand it is miserably difficult to do such an experiment. (And the quark model says we can't isolate an individual quark anyway. The experiments are on-going.)

String theory will be a good test-bed for this as it can predict the properties of the string vibration that a quark is made from (assuming the theory is correct anyway), but we lack the ability to do such experiments. It may be 10 years or more before we can get a good handle on the technology. And if String theory is wrong I don't believe we currently have a good theory to test in its wake.

To sum it up, it's going to be a long while before we can come up with a definitive answer but so far the quark model, which predicts point quarks, has been validated.

Now if you want to try to sink your teeth into it, the weak intermediate vector bosons (the W+, W-, and Z0 particles) have had no constituent measurements taken and there have been a few attempts to propose that they are made of something more fundamental...which implies that the photon might be made of something more fundamental as well.

-Dan
Very good stuff! In another post you commented on my understanding of string theory, I probably have a better understanding than you suppose. String theory is very young and while I see some problems, I also see a lot of virtue. I think it has to mature and I believe the things I am working on will go a long way in producing that maturity(in 4d without normalization).

I of course believe that at some point everything is composed of the same fundamental entity.

I don't know your feelings on infinite T/S, however might I mention that any subset of such would resolve to a point in a universal frame of reference.
__________________
Deception is a complex concept which the human mind is unable to resolve...

Last edited by Troll; Nov 27th 2013 at 12:12 PM.
Troll is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 27th 2013, 03:00 PM   #6
Forum Admin
 
topsquark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: On the dance floor, baby!
Posts: 2,382
Originally Posted by Troll View Post
Very good stuff! In another post you commented on my understanding of string theory, I probably have a better understanding than you suppose. String theory is very young and while I see some problems, I also see a lot of virtue. I think it has to mature and I believe the things I am working on will go a long way in producing that maturity(in 4d without normalization).

I of course believe that at some point everything is composed of the same fundamental entity.

I don't know your feelings on infinite T/S, however might I mention that any subset of such would resolve to a point in a universal frame of reference.
Odd that you would mention infinities in a reference about String theory. One of the attributes of String theory is that there are models in which all the infinities cancel out.

So maybe infinities aren't needed at all. (My own thoughts.)

-Dan
__________________
Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.

See the forum rules here.
topsquark is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 28th 2013, 06:58 AM   #7
Senior Member
 
Troll's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Under a bridge, Tampa, Florida USA
Posts: 157
Originally Posted by topsquark View Post
Odd that you would mention infinities in a reference about String theory. One of the attributes of String theory is that there are models in which all the infinities cancel out.

So maybe infinities aren't needed at all. (My own thoughts.)

-Dan
Ahh! One of my favorite aspects of string theory! Infinities cancel out, but they are still infinities... I call that duality of observation(I don't know if it already has another name).
__________________
Deception is a complex concept which the human mind is unable to resolve...
Troll is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

  Physics Help Forum > College/University Physics Help > Theoretical Physics

Tags
dissection, universe



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Physics Forum Discussions
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
The end of the universe(by eye) philipishin Special and General Relativity 1 Aug 23rd 2016 05:15 PM
Is the Universe Random? MBW Philosophy of Physics 25 Jun 25th 2016 03:48 AM
The Unobservable Universe Mandrake Special and General Relativity 8 Nov 1st 2013 05:31 PM
Determinism of our Universe arbolis Philosophy of Physics 6 Jul 27th 2009 10:19 AM


Facebook Twitter Google+ RSS Feed