Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've never heard the term "matter field"... Is that a thing?
I assume you've heard of particle/wave duality, or how really tiny things are never exactly in only one place. There are a set of wave equations that describe how this works. There are also two kinds of things. Some things can go thru eachother, like photons. Other things bounce off eachother, like neutrons (and other things considered matter). The equations for the kind of things that bounce off eachother would be a…
CERN experiment discovers five new particles
111–120 of 127 posts
Re: CERN experiment discovers five new particles
#112Earlier quoted context omitted.
They are properly called fermionic fields [1] as opposed to bosonic fields. I also want to note that the »super simple overview of Quantum Field Theory & Particle Physics« really is super simple. As far as I can tell - I am not a physicist - none of the statements is actually correct. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermionic_field
Matter fields are indeed a real thing. a Google Books search will reveal hundreds of books etc. They're also called fermionic field. Here's the full range of elementary particles, all 19 of them, in the Standard Model: Fermions: - Leptons (6) (electrons, neutrinos etc.) - Quarks (6) (protons and neutrons are made of this) Bosons: - Gauge Bosons (aka Force Carriers) (4) - Higgs Boson (gives mass to stuff) (1) What cla…
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm going to try to summarize to make sure I understand:
The properties of protons, neutrons, and electrons that make them unique/distinct from each other (mass, electric charge) arise from the composition of each out of smaller particles, which each are/carry/act as the respective mass + charge + the other properties.
Is there any theory as to what this "looks" like? Or is the best we can do "it's a bunch of these things mashed together and the only way to see them individually is to bash them together until they break"?
If the strong and weak forces are particles, does that mean they're 1: literally everywhere, not necessarily stuck to any larger particle and 2: like glue?
I'm also confused about the relationship between gravity and mass, given that the higgs is stated as corresponding to mass, mass is traditionally thought of as what gravity acts upon, but the wikipedia chart states that gravity acts upon all particles.
What a rabbit hole...
Re: CERN experiment discovers five new particles
#113Just to give a bit more context: * These are not elementary particles. * It was predicted for a long time that these composite particles should exist. So it is not "new" in the sense that it was unexpected, but we finally have the resolution (energy, luminosity etc.) to detect these with statistical significance. * These belong to the same class as protons and neutrons - these are hadrons made with multiple quarks. H…
-A curious physicist
Re: CERN experiment discovers five new particles
#114Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can you stop doing everything you can to make people hate science. Stop being elitist maybe?
Did you for real make a new account to complain about your thread being moved?
Re: CERN experiment discovers five new particles
#115Earlier quoted context omitted.
Matter fields are indeed a real thing. a Google Books search will reveal hundreds of books etc. They're also called fermionic field. Here's the full range of elementary particles, all 19 of them, in the Standard Model: Fermions: - Leptons (6) (electrons, neutrinos etc.) - Quarks (6) (protons and neutrons are made of this) Bosons: - Gauge Bosons (aka Force Carriers) (4) - Higgs Boson (gives mass to stuff) (1) What cla…
This is the best summary I've read (not that I've read much) but it really puts things in perspective. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm going to try to summarize to make sure I understand: The properties of protons, neutrons, and electrons that make them unique/distinct from each other (mass, electric charge) arise from the composition of each out of smaller particles, which each are/carry/act as the respective mass…
Gravity is a field, and mass is a property of how it is quantized. The Higgs particle is a description / side-effect of this quantization.
Re: CERN experiment discovers five new particles
#116Re: CERN experiment discovers five new particles
#117Earlier quoted context omitted.
They are properly called fermionic fields [1] as opposed to bosonic fields. I also want to note that the »super simple overview of Quantum Field Theory & Particle Physics« really is super simple. As far as I can tell - I am not a physicist - none of the statements is actually correct. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermionic_field
Matter fields are indeed a real thing. a Google Books search will reveal hundreds of books etc. They're also called fermionic field. Here's the full range of elementary particles, all 19 of them, in the Standard Model: Fermions: - Leptons (6) (electrons, neutrinos etc.) - Quarks (6) (protons and neutrons are made of this) Bosons: - Gauge Bosons (aka Force Carriers) (4) - Higgs Boson (gives mass to stuff) (1) What cla…
You are confusing quantum mechanics with relativistic quantum field theory. Quantum mechanics was developed as consequence of many different experiments showing quantization phenomena or requiring quantization to explain them, among them the spectrum of black-body radiation and the photo electric effect, but also the quantization of charge and spin. Quantum mechanics and non-relativistic quantum field theory are unable to describe electromagnetic fields, the former because it can not handle the creation and annihilation of particles, the later because photons are always relativistic particles and therefore require a relativistic description. Only with the development of quantum electrodynamics, a relativistic quantum field theory, was a quantum mechanical treatment of the electromagnetic field possible. But this was 20 or 40 years after the inception of quantum mechanics, depending on from where you count.
Matter fields are also quantized, hence their excitations behave like discrete particles - the ones we observe at the atomic scale, for instance.
It is important to understand, that quantum field theory is very different from quantum mechanics. In quantum mechanics a wave function describes the state of a system in Hilbert space, it describes properties of particles. But this runs into problems if the system contains many particles. Two electrons, for example, are indistinguishable and swapping them does not change the state, at least up to a sign change of the wave function which is the difference between fermions and bosons. This complicates the mathematical treatment. And as mentioned before, this approach is unable to handle the creation and annihilation of particles. Quantum field theory therefore takes a very different approach and describes with occupation numbers in Fock space how many particles are in each state.
In consequence the fields in quantum field theory are just a mathematical tool to handle many particle states. We started with particles and introduced fields to describe them mathematically, we did not discover that a field is quantized and therefore looks like a collection of particles. Admittedly this is a contentious issue, there are people claiming that those fields are real and more than a mathematical tool.
In hindsight, we should've been able to predict this after E = mc^2 telling us energy matter, thus if energy is quantized so should matter.
We knew or at least suspected that matter is quantized long before we discovered the photon, atoms and particles in general are a very old idea. So at best we could have inferred that energy is quantized from the quantization of matter, not the other way round. But the idea of photons actually predates E = mc², too. You are also probably misinterpreting what E = mc² actually says, you can not use it to link the quantization of energy to the existence of particles, at the very least not in any obvious way. The relationship between mass, energy, and particles is complicated.
And again, I am not a physicist, do not take what I say as the final truth, use it as a starting point. Corrections from actual physicist welcome.
Re: CERN experiment discovers five new particles
#118Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've never heard the term "matter field"... Is that a thing?
I assume you've heard of particle/wave duality, or how really tiny things are never exactly in only one place. There are a set of wave equations that describe how this works. There are also two kinds of things. Some things can go thru eachother, like photons. Other things bounce off eachother, like neutrons (and other things considered matter). The equations for the kind of things that bounce off eachother would be a…
This is not true. The difference between bosons and fermions lies in the way swapping two of them works. The carriers of the weak force, W and Z bosons, are for example electrically charged and can therefore scatter off each other. Gluons, the carriers of the strong force, also interact with each other. Even photon photon scattering is thing. On the other hand you can try to collide two neutrinos, which are fermions, for quite some time and not much will happen.
Re: CERN experiment discovers five new particles
#119Earlier quoted context omitted.
Matter fields are indeed a real thing. a Google Books search will reveal hundreds of books etc. They're also called fermionic field. Here's the full range of elementary particles, all 19 of them, in the Standard Model: Fermions: - Leptons (6) (electrons, neutrinos etc.) - Quarks (6) (protons and neutrons are made of this) Bosons: - Gauge Bosons (aka Force Carriers) (4) - Higgs Boson (gives mass to stuff) (1) What cla…
This is the best summary I've read (not that I've read much) but it really puts things in perspective. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm going to try to summarize to make sure I understand: The properties of protons, neutrons, and electrons that make them unique/distinct from each other (mass, electric charge) arise from the composition of each out of smaller particles, which each are/carry/act as the respective mass…
Electrons, Positrons, Neutrinos, Muons, ... are elementary particles. You can't break them.
Protons, Neutrons, ... are composed by three quarks. Quarks are elementary particles that you can't break.
The quarks inside the proton and neutron are bounded by the strong force. The strong force is really strong so no one have seen an isolated quarks.
We only know they are formed by three quarks because if we make them collide at high speed the quarks from one of them can be recombined with the quark of the other and form a few new particles.
It's more complicated, because during the collisions it is possible to create a pair of quark-antiquark. So if you collide a proton and an antiproton at a high speed, after the collision you have to rearrange the 3 quarks from the proton, the 3 antiquarks from the antiproton, and all the quarks and antiquarks that appeared in the collision.
The exact number of pairs of quarks and antiquarks and their favors are determined by probabilities derived from difficult calculations.
And actually, all this mess is not instantaneous, the quarks can rearrange themselves in some particles that later decay in other particles with other quarks.
In particular in this experiment they didn't see the "new" particles directly, because they live for a very short time. They only saw the particles that were formed after the "new" particle decayed.
---
About
> If the strong and weak forces are particles
No. It's important to distinguish the difference between a force and the particles that are the carriers of the force. The differences and relations are subtle, so it's better do delay the discussion for another day
> gravity ... mass ... higgs
They are also different things, that are interrelated but different.
Re: CERN experiment discovers five new particles
#120Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can you stop doing everything you can to make people hate science. Stop being elitist maybe?
Did you for real make a new account to complain about your thread being moved?