Science topics: Physical SciencesParticle Physics

Science topic

# Particle Physics - Science topic

Explore the latest questions and answers in Particle Physics, and find Particle Physics experts.

Questions related to Particle Physics

In the Standard Model, if we ignore the unverifiable property of colour charge and consider neutrinos as ‘dark matter particles’ for the time being [1], then we can consider fermions to have the signature properties of electric charge, spin magnetic moment and mass. We consider the electron as a representative, which differs from other fermions only by its mass size, stability, and position in the composite particle.

‘Charge’ was one of the first properties of particles to be discovered, and it appears to correspond to “mass-charge”, which has a similar behaviour [Weyl][Heaverside]. While we have paid a great deal of attention to the existence of an origin of mass [2] and introduced the Higgs mechanism [9], no one seems to have paid much attention to the existence of an origin of electric charge since the beginning of the last century. In order to establish an electromagnetic worldview [3], physicists at that time worked on determining the electron model [4][5][6] : is it rigid? What is its radius? A most crucial question is how should the charge in it be distributed? To this day, physics still does not know the structure of the electron, and what the charge is, except that there exists e+e- ↔ γ γ . Then，

1) Does electric charge have an origin? The fact that it is capable of annihilation and creation, there must be a process of generation. What determines this process? Doesn't a process need to be described, even if it is vacuum-excited generation?

2) Is electric charge an independent entity? We have never seen a ‘charge’, only electrons.

3) A charge cannot be a ‘point’, how does it manage not to repel itself? Poincaré once postulated the existence of a non-electromagnetic reaction force that balances the repulsion between distributed charges to keep them from splitting [7].

4) Does the electric field of a charge act on itself? Why do we see this as a problem? [10]

5) Why is the charge a discrete (quantised) value?1 or 1/3

^{‡}. Is the discrete nature of energy related to the discrete nature of charge? Or furthermore, do all discretisations originate from the discrete nature of energy? 〠 6) How can charges be positive and negative and perfectly equal? What is the physical pathway by which charge is created? How can different positive and negative charges be created at the same time in the same physical picture? And positive and negative charges can cause annihilation of positive and negative electrons, not just positive and negative charges.

7) Is there a relationship between electric and magnetic charge? According to Dirac [8], the electric charge e and the magnetic charge g must co-exist, hc/eg=2

^{ *}. Why can the spin-magnetic moment (the inner discreative magnetic moment of the electron) [11] not be considered as a result of ‘magnetic charge’? The magnetic charge must be a magnetic monopole [12], can't it be a magnetic dipole^{ **}? We are looking for magnetic monopoles, why not electric charges? [13] 8) Charge appears to be independent of mass. How can particles with different masses (e, μ, τ; u, c, t; d, s, b) have the same charge? But when e+e- → γ γ occurs, the charge disappears and so does the mass.

9) How can electric charge share a particle with magnetic charge and mass? † Wouldn't this be a good answer if they were all the result of spin [14]?

10) U(1) symmetry produces conserved charge [15]; charge is conserved when interacting. Is conservation of charge independent of conservation of energy? What will it mean if they are not conserved? 〠

11) What should the charge of a black hole be if it is one of its characteristics? Will the charge of the ultimate black hole eventually be the same as that of an electron?

12) The more important question is this: all of these questions, mentioned above, must be answered at the same time for the problem to be truly solved.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

**Supplement**(2024.8.28)

【NO.46】Phenomena Related to Electric Charge，and Remembering Nobel Laureate Tsung-Dao (T.D.) Lee;

-----------------------------------------------------------------

**Notes**

* Note in particular that the relationship between electric and magnetic charge is related solely to Planck's constant h and the speed of light c. This implies that their roots are the same.

** “If Magnetic Monopoles Would Annihilate Like Positive and Negative Electrons, Would Magnetism Still Exist?”https://www.researchgate.net/post/NO23If_Magnetic_Monopoles_Would_Annihilate_Like_Positive_and_Negative_Electrons_Would_Magnetism_Still_Exist

† The central question of interest here is why should fermions have multiple properties and only these properties? Where do these properties come from? What must be the relationship between these properties? How do they fit together?

‡ Dirac asked, "the reason for the existence of a smallest electric charge."

-----------------------------

**Refererncs**

[1] Adhikari, R., Agostini, M., Ky, N. A., Araki, T., Archidiacono, M., Bahr, M., Baur, J., Behrens, J., Bezrukov, F., & Dev, P. B. (2017). A white paper on keV sterile neutrino dark matter. Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, 2017(01), 025.

[2] Wilczek, F. (2006). The origin of mass. Modern Physics Letters A, 21(9), 701-712.

[3] Battimelli, G. (2005). Dreams of a final theory: the failed electromagnetic unification and the origins of relativity. European Journal of Physics, 26(6), S111.

[4] Waite, T., Barut, A. O., & Zeni, J. R. (1997). The Purely Electromagnetic Electron Re-visited. In J. P. Dowling (Ed.), Electron Theory and Quantum Electrodynamics: 100 Years Later (pp. 223-239). Springer US. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4899-0081-4_18

[5] Williamson, J., & Van der Mark, M. (1997). Is the electron a photon with toroidal topology. Annales de la Fondation Louis de Broglie,

[6] Damour, T. (2017). Poincaré, the dynamics of the electron, and relativity. Comptes Rendus Physique, 18(9), 551-562. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crhy.2017.10.006

[7] Poincaré, H. (1905). Sur les Invariants Arithmétiques (On the dynamics of the electron). http://poincare.univ-lorraine.fr/fr/fonds-et-archives； http://www.academie-sciences.fr/fr/Colloques-conferences-et-debats/henri-poincare.html；

[8] Dirac, P. A. M. (1931). Quantised singularities in the electromagnetic field. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series A, Containing Papers of a Mathematical and Physical Character, 133(821), 60-72. Dirac, P. A. M. (1948). The theory of magnetic poles. Physical Review, 74(7), 817.

[9] Higgs, P. W. (2014). Nobel lecture: evading the Goldstone theorem. Reviews of Modern Physics, 86(3), 851.

[10] Wheeler, J. A., & Feynman, R. P. (1949). Classical electrodynamics in terms of direct interparticle action. Reviews of Modern Physics, 21(3), 425.

[11] Ohanian, H. C. (1986). What is spin? American Journal of Physics, 54(6), 500-505.

Yang, C. N. (1983). The spin. AIP Conference Proceedings,

Sasabe, S., & Tsuchiya, K.-i. (2008). What is spin-magnetic moment of electron? Physics Letters A, 372(4), 381-386.

[12] Rajantie, A. (2012). Introduction to magnetic monopoles. Contemporary Physics, 53(3), 195-211.

Rajantie, A. (2016). The search for magnetic monopoles. Physics Today, 69(10), 40-46.

[13] Aad, G., Abbott, B., Abbott, D. C., Abud, A. A., Abeling, K., Abhayasinghe, D., Abidi, S., AbouZeid, O., Abraham, N., & Abramowicz, H. (2020). Search for magnetic monopoles and stable high-electric-charge objects in 13 TeV proton-proton collisions with the ATLAS detector. Physical Review Letters, 124(3), 031802.

[14] Yang, C. N. (1983). The spin. AIP Conference Proceedings,

[15] Lancaster, T., & Blundell, S. J. (2014). Quantum field theory for the gifted amateur. OUP Oxford.

**How did Photons Construct Light?**

Our entire description of photons is based on energy Eo=hν [1], momentum Po=h/λ [2], and Helicity and Massless. we are not sure of the wave function Ψo(t,x) of photons, although there have been many different ideas and attempts to do so [3][4][5][6]. Experiments have shown that photons have wave-particle duality; two-photon interference can occur between them [7], and single-photon interference can occur by itself [8]; low energy photons can make electrons jump, photoelectric effect occurs [9], and the energy is converted to free "photoelectrons" in the matter; mid-level energy photons can collide with electrons and produce Compton scattering [10], so that the photon energy is reduced; High-energy photons can generate "pair-production" [11][12] with the help of atomic nuclei, e.g. γ+γ→e+e-.

Classical field theory is based entirely on the Maxwell's Equations, which consists of Faraday‘s Law, Ampere's Law, Gauss's Law, and Coulomb's Law, where both Faraday's equations and Ampere's equations in free space describe electromagnetic waves. We believe that electromagnetic waves consist of two orthogonal, synchronized, time-varying fields, the electric field E and the magnetic field H. Maxwell's equations is a synthesis of experimental results, not a result of mathematical derivation.

We believe that "All beams of electromagnetic radiation are made of photons" [4], including Laser beams, but "A key question is, can we view light as being comprised of particles called photons, or must one view light as a field, and the 'number of photons' only as the name we give to quantum states of the electromagnetic field [5]? electromagnetic field [5]? We know that cosmic microwave background (CMB) is electromagnetic, and that it needs to be detected with a radar antenna because the wavelength is too long; we know that blackbody radiation is electromagnetic, and that it needs to be detected with a photodetector because the wavelength is too short. We know that X-rays, gamma rays, millimeter waves, meter-wave radio waves, and radio astronomy telescopes detect photons.

However, "What is a photon" [4], should a photon have a scale? Is a bridge needed between the classical Maxwell equations and the photon? We have described them both correctly yet cannot connect them directly. The barrier between photons and electromagnetic waves may never be broken if we remain entangled in the probabilistic interpretation of the wave function [17], photon localizability [18], and Negative-energy solution [19], and such quantum mechanical problems.

Nature does not exist without a reason, and there must be a profound reason why an electromagnetic wave consists of two orthogonal, synchronized, time-varying fields, an electric field E and a magnetic field, rather than one field [23]. This reason either is the cause of its existence, something else causing the phenomenon, or it is the result of its existence, the phenomenon having to constrain the form of existence of something else. In any case, there must be a consistent "ecological chain" between the various forms of existence. This is precisely why the E of an electromagnetic wave is identical to the E of electron charge, the E of W±, the E of quarks, and why the H of an electromagnetic wave is identical to the H of a magnet, the H of a spin magnetic moment. If the electric field, E, and the magnetic field, H, of the electromagnetic wave, surprisingly do not exist in its constituent unit, the photon, then how was it created?

**Questions**:

1) The wave equation does not require two physical quantities, but why are there two quantities, E and H, in the electromagnetic wave equation? And they are not independent*, they must be orthogonal and synchronized [20]**.

2) What kind of photon equation (wave function) is possible to construct a deterministic Maxwell electromagnetic wave equation? It is reasonable to assume that a photon should never be a point particle and must itself have an electric field E and a magnetic field H. The Maxwell equation formed should not be its Probability density‡.

3) Where is the energy of an electromagnetic wave stored? Is it merely a superposition of photon energies? This question has been asked again and again, from Maxwell to Feynman [15] [16], with no answer so far. Is it possible to localize the energy-momentum of a gravitational field if it is not possible to localize the energy-momentum of an electromagnetic wave?

3) How does the Space-Time Curvature act on the electric field E and the magnetic field H of an electromagnetic wave when light is bent in a gravitational field?

4) Why does the physical world follow the invariance principle? How many invariants should there be in physics? What is the relationship between them? Do Maxwell's equations have all invariants? Lorentz invariance, gauge invariance [21], and general covariance [22], etc.?

-----------------------------------------

**Notes**

* Are E and H fixed relationships, or are they independent? "The electric field for one inertial observer is a particular combination of the electric and magnetic fields of the other observer. and similarly for the magnetic field. It follows that the electric and magnetic fields do not, in this sense, have a separate existence but rather are observer-dependent manifestations of a single electromagnetic field" [13][14]. This phenomenon is very significant in that it actually implies the inseparability of E and H.

** On the question of the synchronization of the electric field E and the magnetic field H, @André Michaud initiated a discussion a long time ago and received a wide range of responses.

“To summarize the issue, Ludvig Lorenz interpreted both E and B fields of free moving electromagnetic energy as peaking to maximum synchronously at the same time, which is an interpretation that Maxwell disagreed with; while Maxwell's was that both fields have to mutually induce each other while being 180 degrees out of phase for the electromagnetic energy to even exist and propagate, in permanent oscillation on a plane transverse with respect to the direction of motion of the energy in vacuum.”

‡ It is usually described as such, e.g. "energy-density photon wave function", "position probability density amplitude", "probability density of the photon"[4][6][19]。

-----------------------------------------

**References**

[1] Planck, M. (1900). The theory of heat radiation (1914 (Translation) ed., Vol. 144).

[2] Einstein, A. (1917). Physikalisehe Zeitschrift, xviii, p.121

[3] Sipe, J. (1995). Photon wave functions. Physical Review A, 52(3), 1875. //

[4] Bialynicki-Birula, I., & Bialynicka-Birula, Z. (2006). Beams of electromagnetic radiation carrying angular momentum: the Riemann–Silberstein vector and the classical–quantum correspondence. Optics communications, 264(2), 342-351. //

[5] Smith, B. J., & Raymer, M. (2007). Photon wave functions, wave-packet quantization of light, and coherence theory. New Journal of Physics, 9(11), 414.

[6] Cugnon, J. (2011). The photon wave function. Open Journal of Microphysics, 1.

[7] Pfleegor, R. L., & Mandel, L. (1967). Interference of Independent Photon Beams. Physical Review, 159(5), 1084-1088. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRev.159.1084

[8] De Broglie, L., & Silva, J. A. E. (1968). Interpretation of a Recent Experiment on Interference of Photon Beams. Physical Review, 172(5), 1284-1285. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRev.172.1284

[9] Einstein, A. (1905). 关于光的产生和转换的一个启发性观点 (Chinese ed., Vol. 4).

[10] Compton, A. H. (1923). The Spectrum of Scattered X-Rays. Physical Review, 22(5), 409-413. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRev.22.409

[11] Breit, G., & Wheeler, J. A. (1934). Collision of two light quanta. Physical Review, 46(12), 1087.

[12] Burke, D. L., Field, R. C., Horton-Smith, G., Spencer, J. E., Walz, D., Berridge, S. C., Bugg, W. M., Shmakov, K., Weidemann, A. W., Bula, C., McDonald, K. T., Prebys, E. J., Bamber, C., Boege, S. J., Koffas, T., Kotseroglou, T., Melissinos, A. C., Meyerhofer, D. D., Reis, D. A., & Ragg, W. (1997). Positron Production in Multiphoton Light-by-Light Scattering. Physical Review Letters, 79(9), 1626-1629. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.79.1626

[13] Hall, G. (2008). Maxwell's electromagnetic theory and special relativity. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 366(1871), 1849-1860.

[14] Feynman, R. P. (2005). The Feynman Lectures on Physics(III) [费恩曼物理学讲义] (Chinese ed., Vol. III).

[15] Maxwell, J. C. (1865). VIII. A dynamical theory of the electromagnetic field. Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London(155), 459-512.

[16] Feynman, R. P. (2005). The Feynman Lectures on Physics(II) [费恩曼物理学讲义] (Chinese ed., Vol. II).

[17] Born, M. (1926). Quantum mechanics of collision processes. Uspekhi Fizich.

[18] Zhi-Yong, W., Cai-Dong, X., & Ole, K. (2007). The first-quantized theory of photons. Chinese Physics Letters, 24(2), 418.

[19] Kobe, D. H. (1999). A Relativistic Schrödinger-like Equation for a Photon and Its Second Quantization. Foundations of Physics, 29(8), 1203-1231. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1018855630724

[20] Michaud, A. (2021). Mise en évidence de l'interprétation initiale de Maxwell de l'électromagnétisme (Republication augmentée PI).

[21] Yang, C. N. (2014). The conceptual origins of Maxwell's equations and gauge theory. Physics Today, 67(11), 45.

[22] Petruzziello, L. (2020). A dissertation on General Covariance and its application in particle physics. Journal of Physics: Conference Series,

We are not in a position to scientifically accept five fundamental forces.

According to relativity, gravity is not considered a force. Nevertheless, scientists, including those who advocate for relativity, persist in asserting that there are four fundamental forces: gravitational, electromagnetic, strong nuclear, and weak nuclear. Simply put, physicists who celebrate the triumph of relativity decisively undermine its credibility or completeness.

This raises the question: Why haven't physicists reduced the fundamental forces to three?

Well, I know about spin relaxation, superposition, quantum uncertainty, and Einstein's experiments. I know about the speed of light contain, also the fact that we can't control the spin of a particle.

I still think it can somehow be bypassed and used for the greater good. I want to know everything about quantum entanglement, especially, if there is a way it can be USD to communicate.

Answers to individual questions are expected and respected.

I would also like to know if we can measure spin direction of a single electron, and if yes how is it done?

Subject: Proposal for Discussion: Exploring Connections Between Borwein Integrals and the Fine Structure Constant

Dear ResearchGate Community,

I trust this message finds you well. My name is Dr. Dario Delgado, an electrochemist with a keen interest in particle physics. I have been pondering the enigma of the fine structure constant, a numerical curiosity at 1/137, and would like to share some speculative thoughts that might spark an interesting discussion and potentially contribute to the ongoing exploration of fundamental physics.

**A Next Layer of Physics:**I propose considering the fine structure constant as a potential bridge between the Standard Model and more abstract frameworks like string theory. Perhaps it represents a layer of physics waiting to be uncovered.**Equational Limits:**To further investigate its significance, I suggest exploring equations that yield 137 as a limit. Could there be an integral or mathematical expression, akin to the Borwein Integrals, that converges to a value close to 137, shedding light on the nature of the fine structure constant?**Feynman Diagrams and Interactions:**Drawing inspiration from Feynman Diagrams, which depict particle interactions through vertices, one might consider the multiplication of variables at these vertices. The idea here is that more vertices could imply less likelihood, echoing the complex nature of particle interactions. This concept could be explored further to understand the origins of the fine structure constant.**Esoteric Mathematics and Hypothesis Formulation:**In the pursuit of explaining particle physics phenomena, the integration of esoteric mathematics might serve as a guide. We could propose equations yielding numbers close to our sought-after values and iteratively refine our hypotheses until a viable model emerges.**Borwein Integrals and Sine Waves:**Upon examining the Borwein Integrals, particularly in the context of their interactions with Cos functions, I observed a fascinating breakpoint around 113, equating to Phi. Given the common use of sine waves to represent vibrations, especially in string theory, could the multiple combinations of these waves be an underlying factor influencing the fine structure constant?

I acknowledge that these thoughts may seem speculative, but in the world of quantum physics, where explanations are often counterintuitive, exploring unconventional avenues can lead to groundbreaking insights. I welcome your thoughts, critiques, and suggestions on these musings and would be delighted to engage in a collaborative discussion.

Thank you for your time, and I look forward to the collective exploration of these ideas.

Best regards,

Dr. Dario Delgado

Borweins' article is found here for free: https://carmamaths.org/resources/db90/pdfs/db90-119.00.pdf

This video explains the Integral quite well:

Original text:

I have watched several seminars on particle physics, and it caught my attention the following, the fine structure constant, a number that is 1/137; being of interest the 137 as one can inverse the result of an equation. A representative model should consider:

1) the fine structure constant must be a next layer of physics that is for example anything in between the standard model and the string model (believe to be the most fundamental equation for a theory of everything).

2) It has to be the result of an equation that yields 137 as a limit, for example an integral that gives as a result anything close to 137 (the number is quite close to that, it is believed).

3) Looking at the Feynman Diagrams, there are interactions that are represented by the vertices of these Diagrams, the more vertices the less likelihood for them to happen, each interaction/Vertice is represented by a multiplication of variables, and there are multiple interactions that can explain an interaction, say the collision of electrons when photons are exchanged but these photons can undergo other processes with what they call virtual particles.

4) in Physics, sometimes esoteric mathematics are sought to be a sign for explaining particle physics phenomena, one could propose an equation that yield a number that is close to what one seeks and then propose a hypothesis, then iterate until a suitable model is gotten.

5) Looking at the Borwein Integrals, from the article titled "some remarkable properties of Sinc and related integrals", it is free of access by the way, I couldn't help to notice that multiplication of Sinc integrals when combined with Cos, break at about 113, the equality to Phi. Now, Sines are normally used to represent waves, that is if the string theory has some ground, strings would vibrate as sines, the multiple combination of these sines could be the underlying physics of the fine structure constant, that my hypothesis.

There is no current explanation of that constant, although it is believed that such as explanation would be the next step from the well known "the standard model". I just wanted to share my thoughts, they might seem a bit off but, quantum physics is quite off anyways and explanations are often counter intuitive. this could be a line of research for theorist in particle physics.

Two electrons, A at rest and B moving at high speed. According to the theory of relativity, there is a "Length Contraction and Time Dilation" effect in the space-time of the electron moving at high speed, but not in the electron at rest. Now if electron B is moving with velocity v, towards stationary electron A, at the moment of their collision:

(1) assuming that they are both point particles*, what is the measure of spacetime at the moment of their collision, where exactly is the measure? and is the spacetime of A and B the same spacetime?

(2) Assuming that they are structured particles‡, how is spacetime measured at an interface at the instant before their "collision"?

(3) Is the "Length Contraction and Time Dilation" effect¶ of SR absolute or relative ? Note that no matter how you set up the inertial systems, the spacetime of all inertial systems is a common spacetime that overlaps, and the difference is only in the relative coordinate values.

(4) What causes the "Length Contraction and Time Dilation" effect? Is it the "motion" itself, or is it the increase in "energy-momentum" caused by the motion? If the cause is energy-momentum, then it is consistent with GR?

A realistic example is the "gold-gold (Au + Au) collisions" at the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider (RHIC) by the Solenoidal Tracker at RHIC (STAR ) Collaboration[1][2]. Two gold (Au) ions move in opposite direction at 99.995% of the speed of light. As the ions pass one another without colliding, two photons (?) from the electromagnetic cloud surrounding the ions can interact with each other to create a matter-antimatter pair: an electron (e-) and positron (e+). When two Au particles pass one another, approaching two times the speed of light, how is space-time measured here? And whose spacetime measure is it? This example gives the answer to the relationship between the speed of light and the platform of the light source, how the speed of light is interfaced with the speed of the Au. Light does not change its speed when Au keeps changing its speed, so what determines the difference in speed in between? It must be their spacetime measure. That is, we always have: Δx/Δt = c, assuming that Δx and Δt express spatial and temporal measures, respectively.

-----------------------------------------------------------

Notes:

* During Einstein's original proof [3], objects were considered as point particles, or independent of the structure of the object.

¶ The "Length Contraction and Time Dilation" effect in SR is not shown where exactly it manifests itself.

‡ Regardless of the structure, the electric field of the electron is radially dynamically diffuse and it is part of the electron.

-----------------------------------------------------------

References:

[1] BROOKHAVEN NTIONAL LABORATORY. (2021). "Scientists Generate Matter Directly From Light – Physics Phenomena Predicted More Than 80 Years Ago." from https://scitechdaily.com/scientists-generate-matter-directly-from-light-physics-phenomena-predicted-more-than-80-years-ago/?expand_article=1.

[2] Adam, J., L. Adamczyk and etl. (2021). "Measurement of e+ e− momentum and angular distributions from linearly polarized photon collisions." Physical Review Letters 127(5): 052302.

[3] Einstein, A. (1905). "On the electrodynamics of moving bodies." Annalen der physik 17(10): 891-921.

According to Yangton and Yington Theory, it is proposed that Yangton and Yington Bubbles are the building blocks of Space and Wu’s Pairs are the building blocks of Matter. It is also believed that not only Corresponding Spaces can be generated with Yangton and Yington Bubbles and Wu’s Pairs, but also Corresponding Energy can be generated by the interaction between Force of Creation and the Corresponding Spaces created by Yangton and Yington Bubbles and Wu’s Pairs. In addition, Time reflects the changes of distribution of energy and motion of matter. As a result, four elements of the universe: Space, Time, Energy and Matter can all be naturally created at the same time with Yangton and Yington particles and Force of Creation based on the Space and Energy Correlated Five Principles of The Universe of Yangton and Yington Theory. Furthermore, based on Aging Affected Wu’s Spacetime Shrinkage Theory and Cosmological Redshift, it is proposed that there might be two Singularities and Big Bang Explosions occurred in the history of our universe, which can interpret why some galaxies observed by JMST have redshift corresponding to 26.7 billion years age rather than 13.8 billion years old.

**God said,**

*"Let there be light*." So, did God need to use many means when He created light? Physically we have to ask, "Should all processes of light generation obey the same equation?" "Is this equation the 'God equation'?"

Regarding the types of "light sources", we categorize them according to "how the light is emitted" (the way it is emitted):

Type 0 - naturally existing light. This philosophical assumption is important. It is important because it is impossible to determine whether it is more essential that all light is produced by matter, or that all light exists naturally and is transformed into matter. Moreover, naturally existing light can provide us with an absolute spacetime background (free light has a constant speed of light, independent of the motion of the light source and independent of the observer, which is equivalent to an absolute reference system).

Type I - Orbital Electron Transition[1]: usually determines the characteristic spectra of the elements in the periodic table, they are the "fingerprints" of the elements; if there is human intervention, coherent optical lasers can be generated. According to the assumptions of Bohr's orbital theory, the transitions are instantaneous, there is no process, and no time is required*. Therefore, it also cannot be described using specific differential equations, but only by probabilities. However, Schrödinger believed that the wave equation could give a reasonable explanation, and that the transition was no longer an instantaneous process, but a transitional one. The wave function transitions from one stable state to another, with a "superposition of states" in between [2].

Type II - Accelerated motion of charged particles emitting light. There are various scenarios here, and it should be emphasized that theoretically they can produce light of any wavelength, infinitely short to infinitely long, and they are all photons. 1) Blackbody radiation [3][4]: produced by the thermal motion of charged particles [5], is closely dependent on the temperature, and has a continuous spectrum in terms of statistical properties. This is the most ubiquitous class of light sources, ranging from stars like the Sun to the cosmic microwave background radiation [6], all of which have the same properties. 2) Radio: the most ubiquitous example of this is the electromagnetic waves radiated from antennas of devices such as wireless broadcasting, wireless communications, and radar. 3）Synchrotron radiation[7]，e+e− → e+e−γ；the electromagnetic radiation emitted when charged particles travel in curved paths. 4）bremsstrahlung[8]，for example, e+e− → qqg → 3 jets[11]；electromagnetic radiation produced by the acceleration or especially the deceleration of a charged particle after passing through the electric and magnetic fields of a nucleus，continuous spectrum. 5）Cherenkov Radiation[9]：light produced by charged particles when they pass through an optically transparent medium at speeds greater than the speed of light in that medium.

Type III：Partical reactions、Nuclear reactions：Any physical reaction process that produces photon (boson**) output. 1）the Gamma Decay；2）Annihilation of particles and antiparticles when they meet[10]: this is a universal property of symmetric particles, the most typical physical reaction；3）Various concomitant light, such as during particle collisions；4）Transformational light output when light interacts with matter, such as Compton scattering[12].

Type IV: Various redshifts and violet shifts, changing the relative energies of light: gravitational redshift and violet shift, Doppler shift; cosmological redshift.

Type V: Virtual Photon[13][14]?

**Our questions are**:

Among these types of light-emitting modes, type II and type IV light-emitting obey Maxwell's equation, and the type I and type III light-emitting processes are not clearly explained.

We can not know the light-emitting process, but we can be sure that the result, the final output of photons, is the same. Can we be sure that it is a different process that produces the same photons?

Is the thing that is capable of producing light, itself light? Or at least contains elements of light, e.g., an electric field E, a magnetic field H. If there aren't any elements of light in it, then how was it created? By what means was one energy, momentum, converted into another energy hν, momentum h/λ?

There is a view that "Virtual particles are indeed real particles. Quantum theory predicts that every particle spends some time as a combination of other particles in all possible ways"[15]. What then are the actual things that can fulfill this interpretation? Can it only be energy-momentum?

We believe everything needs to be described by mathematical equations (not made-up operators). If the output of a system is the same, then the process that bridges the output should also be the same. That is, the output equations for light are the same, whether it is a transition, an accelerated moving charged particle, or an annihilation process, the difference is only in the input.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* Schrödinger said：the theory was silent about the period s of transition or 'quantum jumps' (as one then began to call them). Since intermediary states had to remain disallowed, one could not but regard the transition as instantaneous; but on the other hand, the radiating of a coherent wave train of 3 or 4 feet length, as it can be observed in an interferometer, would use up just about the average interval between two transitions, leaving the atom no time to 'be' in those stationary states, the only ones of which the theory gave a description.

** We know the most about photons, but not so much about the nature of W, Z, and g. Their mass and confined existence is a problem. We hope to be able to discuss this in a follow-up issue.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Links to related issues:

【1】"How does light know its speed and maintain that speed?”;

【2】"How do light and particles know that they are choosing the shortest path?”

【3】"light is always propagated with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body.";

【4】“Are annihilation and pair production mutually inverse processes?”； https://www.researchgate.net/post/NO8_Are_annihilation_and_pair_production_mutually_inverse_processes;

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Reference:

[1] Bohr, N. (1913). "On the constitution of atoms and molecules." The London, Edinburgh, and Dublin Philosophical Magazine and Journal of Science 26(151): 1-25.

[2] Schrödinger, E. (1952). "Are there quantum jumps? Part I." The British Journal for the Philosophy of science 3.10 (1952): 109-123.

[3] Gearhart, C. A. (2002). "Planck, the Quantum, and the Historians." Physics in perspective 4(2): 170-215.

[4] Jain, P. and L. Sharma (1998). "The Physics of blackbody radiation: A review." Journal of Applied Science in Southern Africa 4: 80-101. 【GR@Pushpendra K. Jain】

[5] Arons, A. B. and M. Peppard (1965). "Einstein's Proposal of the Photon Concept—a Translation of the Annalen der Physik Paper of 1905." American Journal of Physics 33(5): 367-374.

[6] PROGRAM, P. "PLANCK PROGRAM."

[8] 韧致辐射；

[9] Neutrino detection by Cherenkov radiation：" Super-Kamiokande(超级神冈)." from https://www-sk.icrr.u-tokyo.ac.jp/en/sk/about/. 江门中微子实验 "The Jiangmen Underground Neutrino Observatory (JUNO)." from http://juno.ihep.cas.cn/.

[10] Li, B. A. and C. N. Yang (1989). "CY Chao, Pair creation and Pair Annihilation." International Journal of Modern Physics A 4(17): 4325-4335.

[11] Schmitz, W. (2019). Particles, Fields and Forces, Springer.

[12] Compton, A. H. (1923). "The Spectrum of Scattered X-Rays." Physical Review 22(5): 409-413.

[13] Manoukian, E. B. (2020). Transition Amplitudes and the Meaning of Virtual Particles. 100 Years of Fundamental Theoretical Physics in the Palm of Your Hand: Integrated Technical Treatment. E. B. Manoukian. Cham, Springer International Publishing: 169-175.

[14] Jaeger, G. (2021). "Exchange Forces in Particle Physics." Foundations of Physics 51(1): 13.

[15] Are virtual particles really constantly popping in and out of existence? Or are they merely a mathematical bookkeeping device for quantum mechanics? - Scientific American.

I would like to ask a general question: Any other physicists of any kind, what do YOU see as the fundamental flaws currently existing in mathematics-to-physics (or vice versa) calculations in a general sense? Is it differences in tensors, unknown values, inconsistent unreliable outputs with known methods, no reliable well-known methods ect? Or is the problem to you seen as more of a problem with scientific attitudes and viewpoints being limiting in their current state? And the bigger overall question: Which of these options is limiting science to a higher degree? I'd love to hear other's comments on this.

Are annihilation and pair production mutually inverse processes?

p+p− → γ γ'

“Annihilation can happen when all the quantum numbers of two colliding particles add up to zero. It might be electron on positron, proton on antiproton, neutron on antineutron, quark on antiquark etc. The force responsible depends on the possible interactions of the annihilating particles.” “Annihilation does not require the presence of other fields.”[x]

“In particular, one concludes that the two photons resulting from the annihilation of slow positrons in matter always have their planes of polarization perpendicular to each other. This has been pointed out by Wheeler who also proposed a possible experimental verification.”[2]

γ γ' →p+p−

It is often assumed that the concept of pair generation was first introduced by Breit and Wheeler, ω1+ω2→e+e-; however, in their paper [1], "pair generation" appears as an old term and cites the paper by Weizsäcker, CF, Z (1934), and Williams' formula。

Perrin (1933) (in French) was probably the first to introduce the concept of 'pair production'. He had a paper entitled "The possibility of materialization by the interaction of photons and electrons."

Regarding pair production: 1）At first sight light-light scattering seems to be impossible because in classical electrodynamics (linear Maxwell equations) the process does not occur. The resulting wave is everywhere given by the sum of the two incoming waves. 2）In quantum mechanics however the situation is quite different. Due to the uncertainty principle a photon of energy E can fluctuate into states of charged particle pairs (with mass mpair.）Experimentally it is very difficult to collide high energy photon beams. A very elegant way of avoiding this difficulty is again to use virtual particles, this time the quantum fluctuation of an electron into an electron photon state.[3]

The identification of pairs is usually a result of statistical findings[4][5][7][8][9]. e.g.

The identification of γ γ → pp events is mainly based on three artificial neural networks, used to separate antiprotons from e−, µ− and h−, where h− represents either a π− or K−[4]

QCD predictions for large-momentum transfer cross sections of the type ‘γγ→ BB' are given, for B and B' any members of the baryon octet or decuplet, and all possible helicity combinations for photons and baryons[8].

An electron enters the laser beam from the left, and collides with a laser photon to produce a high-energy gamma ray. The electron is deflected downwards. The gamma ray then collides with four or more laser photons to produce an electron-positron pair [9].

**My questions:**

1) The process of "pair production" and the process of annihilation of positive and negative particles are not mutually invertible. Just as the mass-energy equation is not reciprocal (E=mc^2, which is irreversible for photons), p+p- → γ γ' and γ γ' → p+p- are not γ γ' = p+p-. This is one of the differences between the mathematical equations and the physical equations.

(2) The process of "annihilation" does not require special conditions, while the process of " pair production" must require auxiliary conditions, the presence of other particles being necessary. What is the essential function of these auxiliary conditions? What are the conditions under which photons can "collide" and not just interfere?

3) Is the process of "pair production" one or two processes? Must the " pair of particles" be produced in pairs at the same time, or with equal probability for positive and negative particles? Or is it both. The literature [6] describes pairs of positive and negative particles as being produced simultaneously. This question is very important because it determines the mechanism of the "photon-particle" transition and even their structure.

(4) The colliding positive and negative particles do not necessarily annihilate into photons, but essentially depend on whether the magnitude of the energy reaches the energy value of a certain particle, e+e-→µ+µ-. Here is the root of the problem of the level difference of the three generations of particles implied, just as the energy level difference of orbiting electrons. Can quantum field theory give a concrete, or directional, explanation?

5)

**Where do the properties of the original positive and negative particles go after annihilation occurs? Charge, spin-magnetic moment, mass, and the spacetime field of the elementary particle**. Can the origin of the properties be inferred from this? That is, if the properties are somehow conserved, then by reversibility, do the annihilated photons imply all the properties of the elementary particles. The total charge is conserved after the annihilation of the positive and negative electrons. But where does the positive charge go and where does the negative charge go? The following issues are involved here: https://www.researchgate.net/post/How_Fermions_combine_four_properties_in_one[1]【Breit, G. and J. A. Wheeler (1934). "Collision of two light quanta." Physical Review 46(12): 1087】

[2]【Yang, C.-N. (1950). "Selection rules for the dematerialization of a particle into two photons." Physical Review 77(2): 242】

[3]【Berger, C. and W. Wagner (1987). "Photon photon reactions." Physics Reports 146(1-2): 1-134】

[4]【Achard, P., O. Adriani, M. Aguilar-Benitez and etl. (2003). "Proton–antiproton pair production in two-photon collisions at LEP." Physics Letters B 571(1-2): 11-20】

[5]【de Jeneret, J., V. Lemaitre, Y. Liu, S. Ovyn, T. Pierzchala, K. Piotrzkowski, X. Rouby, N. Schul and M. V. Donckt (2009). "High energy photon interactions at the LHC." arXiv preprint arXiv:0908.2020.】

[6]【Michaud, A. (2013). "The Mechanics of Electron-Positron Pair Creation in the 3-Spaces Model." International Journal of Engineering Research and Development 6: 2278-2800】* Researchgate Link：

Minimum mass issues are involved here:

[7]【Klein, S. R. and P. Steinberg (2020). "Photonuclear and two-photon interactions at high-energy nuclear colliders." Annual Review of Nuclear and Particle Science 70: 323-354.】

[8]【Farrar, G. R., E. Maina and F. Neri (1985). "QCD Predictions for γγ Annihilation to Baryons." Nuclear Physics B 259(4): 702-720】

[9]【SLAC. (1970). "SLAC Experiment E144 Home Page." from https://www.slac.stanford.edu/exp/e144/.】

【Burke, D. L., R. C. Field, G. Horton-Smith, J. E. Spencer, D. Walz, S. C. Berridge, W. M. Bugg, K. Shmakov, A. W. Weidemann, C. Bula, K. T. McDonald, E. J. Prebys, C. Bamber, S. J. Boege, T. Koffas, T. Kotseroglou, A. C. Melissinos, D. D. Meyerhofer, D. A. Reis and W. Ragg (1997). "Positron Production in Multiphoton Light-by-Light Scattering." Physical Review Letters 79(9): 1626-1629】

【Schwarzschild, B. (1998). "Gamma Rays Create Matter Just by Plowing into Laser Light." Physics Today 51(2): 17-18】

————————————————————————————————————

2023-06-25

For the "pair production" experiment, the 2021 STAR Collaboration collectively published a paper "Measurement of e+ e- momentum and angular distributions from linearly polarized photon collisions" [4].

"At RHIC, scientists accelerate gold ions to 99.995% of the speed of light in two accelerator rings. If the speed is high enough, the strength of the circular magnetic field can be equal to the strength of the perpendicular electric field," Xu said. perpendicular electric and magnetic fields of equal strength is exactly what a photon is-a quantized "particle "So, when the ions are moving close to the speed of light, there are a bunch of photons surrounding the gold nucleus. As the ions pass one another without colliding, two photons (γ) from the electromagnetic cloud surrounding the ions can interact with each other to create a matter-antimatter pair: an electron (e-) and positron (e+) [5]. [The headline of the media report is more interesting [5][6][7]]

The history of the discovery of the physics of particle production and annihilation is presented in paper [1]; paper [3] is an analysis of the experimental phenomena by Anderson, the discoverer of positrons, in which four possibilities are proposed for each result, "pair production" being one of them. He finally determined that "pair production" was the real case. The results provided by André Michaud [9] should be similar [see his replies for details].

Comparing the STAR experiment [5] and the E114 experimental method [8], they produce photon "collisions" in a very different way. These two experiments are in turn different from experiments [2] and [3]. It is commonly believed that there are three possible interactions [4]: the collisions of two virtual photons (as calculated by Landau and Lifshitz, giving the total cross section for e+e- production predominantly at the pair threshold), of one virtual and one real photon (Bethe-Heitler process ), or of two real photons-the Breit-Wheeler process.

Question: Yang[1] and Andeson considered that Chao [2] and Anderson [3] are both electron pair generation processes, so is this a "photon-photon" collision "γγ → e+e- " process? If so, are the photons real or virtual, and what is the difference between them and the experiments [4][8]? If not, then there are no "photon-photon" collisions in the experiments of Chao [2] and Anderson [3], but only "photon-particle" collisions?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Reference：

[1] Li, B. A. and C. N. Yang (1989). "CY Chao, Pair creation and Pair Annihilation." International Journal of Modern Physics A 4(17): 4325-4335.

[2] Chao, C.-Y. (1930). "The absorption coefficient of hard γ-rays." Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 16(6): 431-433.

[3] Anderson, C. D. (1932). "The apparent existence of easily deflectable positives." Science 76(1967): 238-239.

[4] Adam, J., L. Adamczyk and etl. (2021). "Measurement of e+ e− momentum and angular distributions from linearly polarized photon collisions." Physical Review Letters 127(5): 052302:

[5] "Collisions of Light Produce Matter/Antimatter from Pure Energy": https://www.bnl.gov/newsroom/news.php?a=119023

[6] "Colliding photons were spotted making matter. But are the photons 'real' ? ": https://www.sciencenews.org/article/colliding-photons-matter-particle-physics#:~:text=In%20a%20demonstration%20of%20Einstein%E2%80%99s%20E%3Dmc%202%2C%20collisions,colliding%20particles%20of%20light%20create%20matter%20and%20antimatter.

[7] "Scientists Generate Matter Directly From Light – Physics Phenomena Predicted More Than 80 Years Ago": https://scitechdaily.com/scientists-generate-matter-directly-from-light-physics-phenomena-predicted-more-than-80-years-ago/?expand_article=1

[8] SLAC. (1970). "SLAC Experiment E144 Home Page." from https://www.slac.stanford.edu/exp/e144/.

[9] the FERMILAB experiment E632 bubble chamber picture;

If an electron A at a specific spacetime loses a certain number of quanta of energy (say, 100 quanta), naturally its total energy has come down. Or, will anyone claim that it has thus increased or that it is in a constant state? Now imagine that it is accelerated later by other forces.

Consider another electron B at another spacetime. It has not lost so many quanta of energy (say, only 50 quanta). Like A, now B is also being accelerated with the same amount of energy.

Of course, whether our measurement of the acceleration energy in the two cases is absolutely exact is yet another ambiguous matter, but we suppose that they are equal.

Will the latter be at a better position in the total energy content than the former? Or, will it be claimed that their energy, mass, etc. After receiving equal acceleration from outside, are equal, merely because they are both electrons already taken to possess a certain mass?

Moreover, we know that in the path that both the electrons take there will be other physical influences which we do not determine and cannot. These influences must be at least slightly different from each other.

In short, the mass, energy, etc. of the two electrons will never be equal at any physical state, not have they been absolutely equal at any time. And we know that nothing in the world is in a static state. So, there is no reason to suppose that electrons will have a static mass, energy, etc.

Of course, we can calculate and fix them as supposedly static mass, energy, etc. These will be useful for practical purposes, but not as absolutes.

That is, our generalized determination of an exact mass for an electron need not be the exact energy, mass, etc. of an electron in various physically processual circumstances. At normal circumstances within a specific chemical element, and when freed from it, the electron will have different values.

This shows that no electron (in itself) will be identical in all its properties with any other. Our description of these properties may be considered as identical. But this description in physics is meant merely for pragmatic purposes! One cannot now universalize it and say that the mass, energy, etc. of electrons are the same everywhere.

What about the said values (mass, energy, etc.) of other particles like photon, neutrino, etc.? I believe none can prove their case to be otherwise in the case of these particles / wavicles too.

That is, there is nothing in the world, including electrons, quarks, photons, neutrinos, etc., with an exact duplicate anywhere else. This is the foundation for the principle of physical identity.

Bibliography

*(1) Gravitational Coalescence Paradox and Cosmogenetic Causality in Quantum Astrophysical Cosmology*, 647 pp., Berlin, 2018.

*(2) Physics without Metaphysics? Categories of Second Generation Scientific Ontology*, 386 pp., Frankfurt, 2015.

*(3) Causal Ubiquity in Quantum Physics: A Superluminal and Local-Causal Physical Ontology*, 361 pp., Frankfurt, 2014.

*(4) Essential Cosmology and Philosophy for All: Gravitational Coalescence Cosmology*, 92 pp., KDP Amazon, 2022, 2nd Edition.

*(5) Essenzielle Kosmologie und Philosophie für alle: Gravitational-Koaleszenz-Kosmologie*, 104 pp., KDP Amazon, 2022, 1st Edition.

The Daon Theory is a proposed as the final theory of everything (ToE). This theory calculates all pertinent constants and explains all fundamental natural phenomena. The chapters treat the reference frame, the medium around an electron, electricity, magnetism, induction, EM-waves, atomic physics, relativity, the photon and the neutrino, particle physics, gravitation and cosmology.

I will put around 12 chapter into my profile; each chapter explains a specific phenomenon.

I hope to receive comments and critics so that I can improve the text. Even if you don't believe in my theory, I'm sure that you can learn something from these new and original ideas.

J.E.S Gustafsson

Why atoms do not repel each other when electrons are outside of nuclear. I think inverse square law of force doesn't allow atoms to come close and form molecules but in reality atoms come close and form molecules. How ?

Although there are new attempts using the exotic atoms of hydrogen and deuterium since 2010 to measure the regular radius of the proton, is it legitimate to consider that the value 0.8758fm is until today the experimental value the most accurate for the regular radius of the proton which accords perfectly with the theory of the standard model of particle physics?

[This picture is from class lecture slides, unfortunately whose source (and copyright attribution) is unknown to me and also course instructor.]

(n= principal, l= subsidiary/orbital m=magnetic and s= spin quantum number)

As I came through study materials,

Auger Electron Spectroscopy (AES) peaks are implicitly numberd as (absolute value of) magnetic plus/minus spin quantum numbers e.g. one (1/2) for s, two for p (1/2, 3/2), three for d (1/2, 3/2, 5/2), four for f (1/2, 3/2, 5/2, 7/2); thus 1 for K, 1+2=3 for L, 1+2+3=6 for M and 1+2+3+4= 10 variants of Auger emission from N (i know 3 shells are involved in a auger with these indices unwritten often e.g. Al KLL, U MNN...)

But for X-ray Photoelectron Spectroscopy (XPS), the peak labels implied involves (absolute value of) subsidiary plus spin quantum numbers, that is 1 for s (1/2), 2 for p (1/2, 3/2), 2 for d (3/2, 5/2), 2 for f (5/2, 7/2)

That means, no XPS with d_(1/2), f_(1/2) or f_(3/2) indices would be possible. But why is this so?

One can say, interaction of electron spin magnetic moment with subsidiary magnetic moment (the so-called LS coupling) is more important for photoelectron emission, while spin plus magnetic orbital moment is more important for auger emission. Why is this so? whatever the selection rules maybe involved, why it physically exists?

I know that LS coupling works better for lighter and JJ coupling for heavier elements. but both involes l and s; all individual l sum to L and all individual s sum to S, and this L and S precesses around net magnetic moment for LS coupling. and for JJ coupling, individual l and s combines to form individual j, all j combines to J and precesses around net magnetic moment. Nowhere I see m here in the picture

In a hypothetical situation where I have two wires, ones cross section is a cylinder, and the others a star. Both have the same cross section area, both have the same length. What are the differences in electrical properties ?

Are there any experiments done looking into this ?

Also what would happen if a wire had a conical shape, by length ?

The energy of β-electrons resp. positrons reaches very high values in many cases. If one follows the theoretical assumption that electron/positron and the β-neutrino share the constant β-decay energy, one comes to the conclusion that a certain part of the neutrinos has negative energy.

The existence of particles with negative energy would have not only theoretical but also real consequences for particle physics.

1960 Gell-Mann detected the 3 quarks (up, down & strange) as crossing points of the Kaons and Pions connections in 3 D. The QM only kept the quarks 2 D (spin & charge) without the construction but only the Lagrangian formula for everything. Is that the exact maximum & end of the particle physics ? The way would be clearly "from the SM to the Higgs field with the 61 - 64 Elementary particles with the Data of each particle (of the real matter) .

The gray matter may come later, but first the real matter with 3.15° K.

The classical electron radius is well known and effectively represents the charge radius which is 2.82 X 10^-15 m.

The "physical" radius of the free electron has yet to be determined experimentally but is known to be less than 10^-18 m.

Has any body got a more accurate experimental value for the electron radius

Or has anyone got a handle on the theoretical free electron radius,

Hello everyone,

As you've probably guessed I'm fairly new to Geant4 and I am working on a project where I have to determine energy deposits in various organs after Irradiating the thyroid with I(131).

For starter I want to use the available human phantom just to get the gist of it but my problem is how should I simulate the radiation, provided that Iodine is concentrated in the thyroid and that it has a half life of 8 days, said Iodine disintegrate by emitting an electron and a gamma ray.

My questions are many:

1/Should I take the thyroid as the point from where the radiation is being emitted?

2/How will the half life be taken into account?

3/Do the organs provided in the example have sensitive detectors or should I create them?

4/How does the scoring goes?

All in all I would appreciate any and all help and if anyone has a clear idea of how I should proceed please your help is most welcome.

Thank you.

An electron’s electric-magnetic field extends far from the electron’s center of charge. When we designate the electron’s energy, we include the energy in the electron’s electric field. The energy in an electric field external to charge

*e*is:*E*= αħ_{ext}*c*/2*r*, where*r*is radial distance and α is the fine structure constant. For example, the energy in the electric field beyond 1 nanometer from charge*e*is about 1 eV. NIST specifies an electron’s energy to a standard uncertainty of 1.5x10^{-4}eV. Therefore, the experimentally measured electron energy includes the electron’s electric field energy extending out to about 5 micrometers. We know an electron’s electric field extends far beyond this distance. Does this mean an electron’s radius also extends indefinitely?How do you visualize the structure of an electron? Do you include an electron’s electric field as a fundamental part of an electron? If so, how big is your electron model?

But 1960 Gell-Mann constructed a kind of stereo model with Baryon Decuplet, choosing Spin-Strangeness-Charge. Why couldn't we do it even not with the most technical programs? Should particle physics be forever an obscure knowledge for Mathematic secret bees

Recently, I've been selected for an ICTP program named Physics of Complex Systems. But, I have a keen interest in Particle Physics & Quantum networks. As statistical mechanics involved in Complex systems. One of my professors said that statistical mechanics could be a helpful tool for particle physics.

is there a deeper fundamental property of neutrino oscillations? How does it work at the field level? is there any advanced mathematical connection or is only a physical fact?

i want to know that going on in this topic and that could be the most important papers ,such as Scattering of two-dimensional massless Dirac electrons by a circular potential barrier and i only want to know more in this topic ,could yo give me an idea?

Einstein's time dilation is determined with t’=t(1-v^2/c^2)^1/2. It is thought that the time dilation is confirmed with that the life of the flying mesons is longer than that at rest.

However, this is not true.

First, there does not be the stationary meson. Any particle is always moving. There are only the faster and slower moving mesons.

Second, no experiment for explaining the time dilation determined that what speed was used to distinguish the slower mesons from the faster ones. Or, in another word, are there the slower mesons? And, how much is the difference of the speeds between the slower and faster mesons?

Third, if there were the slower and faster mesons, the mesons are decaying according to a certain law. Thus, the life of some of the slower mesons is longer than that of parts of the slower ones. And, for the same reasons, the life of some of the faster mesons is longer than that of parts of the faster ones. Therefore, no life of both the slower and faster mesons is accordant with t’=t(1-v^2/c^2)^1/2.

I recently found a publication that states extruded nanoparticles of roughly 120nm with +/- 1.21nm. This converts to a PDI of roughly 0.00011. Is this reliable? Or even possible?

The fact that the measurement of vanishing distances is physically impossible, which preempts continuity, may lead us to not consider renormalization as a proper procedure in particle physics.

Also, it may lead us to disconsider it, as not needed to define derivatives using infinitesimals, and use Galois fields instead.

We may be pushing our equations too close, to limits where they probably do not apply, and renormalization just tries to solve the symptoms -- to avoid infinities. But the "problem" remains -- there are no infinitesimals in Nature, nor can be created.

Can we not use a concept that we cannot find nor encounter? Infinitesimals do not exist? Then, is renormalization necessary?

Just attended some very interesting lectures as part of the "Higgs Fest" here at Uppsala (http://www.kalendarium.uu.se/en?eventId=4251), but while I think I understood how protons and neutrons gather mass from the Higgs field, I failed to comprehend how the electron gets its mass. - Would be grateful for any enlightenment for a physicist.

Quarks have emerged from the evidence that protons and neutrons are composite particles. This has led to the formulation of the QCD and the "asymptotic freedom" hypothesis. This theoretical framework explains the bond between nucleons. But the hypothesis of their existence has stumbled upon the impossibility of detecting them as free particles. The question is whether there is any experimental confirmation of their existence as components of nucleons.

the spin of Δ(1232) is 3/2 ,but its decay product,like nuclear is 1/2,pion is 0, so the spin isn't consistent before and after decay reaction .Is some of the spin angular momentun translate to orbital angular momentum?So what is the trajectory of a free particle that carries orbital angular momentum?

One remembers, first, that all matter used in anything is constructed of atoms, where atoms are made of particles, where quantum mechanics (QM) physically works.

Any physics, chemistry, engineering, computer science, even mathematics -- where the electrons, light, wave, and number behaviors are determining these fields by Nature -- will

**obey quantum rules**, such as NO "law of the excluded middle" and NO "axiom of choice", and where QM principles play main roles.One reads, for example, at Stanford U. that:

*the concepts and techniques of quantum mechanics are essential in many areas of engineering and science such as materials science, nanotechnology, electronic devices, and photonics.*Nominations by participants here (in order of appearance) include:

**Superfluidity, superconductivity, HVDC with QM rectification by a thyristor (semiconductor), incandescence, laser, quantum decoherence, entanglement, P-type or N-type semiconductors, transistor radio, and the entire known universe for 13.8 billion years so far.**

What is your reasoned opinion? What is your best example of QM having visible effects on microscopic and macroscopic scales?

During my reading about interaction of particles physics, i found there are some interactions that is impossible to occur because, it do not conserve the energy. By more investigation about this point, found that the rest mass of input particles of these type of interactions is less than the rest mass of output particles so, i think now that don't conserve energy because the rest mass not conserved. Is my understanding is correct?

If it is correct, we can by more K.E for input particles make a chance to convert the extra energy (K.E) to mass in output particles and making these interactions are possible (from the equation that relate the energy and mass in relativity $E=m c^2$).

Finally, I have problem to understand the meaning of impossible interactions due to the conservation of energy. An example of these ineractions:

$\Sigma^{0} \rightarrow \Lambda + \pi^{0}$

Thanks

I believe that Higgs boson is not a God Particle and there is much to unveil beyond it...

I welcome all unique Scholars to respond with your valuable answers..

Thank you..

Contemporary physics is from the view of particle physics a breeding ground for theories which quite misses a serious analysis of all the comprehensive facts collected over decades.

The amount of observed particles (called 'particle zoo') are not used to reconstruct the underlying structures of matter. Additional particles are invented instead by theoretical need. The own subjectivistic theories are described as the truth. There is a inability visible to face the facts. Contradictions are suppressed.

Physics is at a crossroads: Exact science or scientific founded faith.

As we know, many cosmologists argue that the Universe emerged out of nothing, for example Hawking-Mlodinow (Grand Design, 2010), and Lawrence Krauss, see http://www.wall.org/~aron/blog/a-universe-from-nothing/. Most of their arguments rely on conviction that the Universe emerged out of vacuum fluctuations.

While that kind of argument may sound interesting, it is too weak argument in particular from the viewpoint of Quantum Field Theory. In QFT, the quantum vaccuum is far from the classical definition of vaccuum ("nothing"), but it is an active field which consists of virtual particles. Theoretically, under special external field (such as strong laser), those virtual particles can turn to become real particle, this effect is known as Schwinger effect. See for example a dissertation by Florian Hebenstreit at http://arxiv.org/pdf/1106.5965v1.pdf.

Of course, some cosmologists argue in favor of the so-called Cosmological Schwinger effect, which essentially says that under strong gravitational field some virtual particles can be pushed to become real particles.

Therefore, if we want to put this idea of pair production into cosmological setting, we find at least two possibilities from QFT:

a. The universe may have beginning from vacuum fluctuations, but it needs very large laser or other external field to trigger the Schwinger effect. But then one can ask: Who triggered that laser in the beginning?

b. In the beginning there could be strong gravitational field which triggered Cosmological Schwinger effect. But how could it be possible because in the beginning nothing exists including large gravitational field? So it seems like a tautology.

Based on the above two considerations, it seems that the idea of Hawking-Mlodinow-Krauss that the universe emerged from nothing is very weak. What do you think?

The great experiment at the LHC has proven the non-existence of quarks.

But current theories claim that 'quarks' are the decaying particles if β-electrons resp. β-positrons arise. If the theories of β-decays are wrong also W-Bosons, Z-Bosons and 'neutrinos' at issue.

In my opinion velocities more than that of light are imaginary only.We can not observe velocities more than that of light.

Based on this imaginary concept how a field is described and got 'Nobel' for its predicted particle.

Means, the calculation of predictions by standard model and quantum field theory may be correct. But still the most fundamental of quantum mechanics need some modifications which may modify even the standard model also.I feel that these modifications may develop new concepts in cosmology, black holes, dark matter and particle physics.

I recently prepublished this paper and deposited it on HAL (CNRS open archives):

What do you think ?

Papers to suggest in this area to cross opinions?

Please someone tell me what is the difference in the Target material of world volume and sensitive detector material of chamber volume of B2 Basic example in Geant4 simulation?

I am using QGSP_BERT_HP physics list in B2 Basic example.

I am changing target material to Boron-10, sensitive detector material to Si and particle to neutron in B2 Basic example of Geant4.10.01. I am getting the secondary particles Lithium,alpha and gamma.

If I am changing sensitive detector material to Boron-10, target material to Xe and particle to neutron in the same example. I am getting the same secondary particle. Just at the output file in the bottom there are just displaying the energy deposition. Nothing else everything is the same as above.

I really want to know the difference in Target material and sensitive detector material in B2 Basic example?

Why should we care about axions which were not found in connection with dark matter?

They are just hypothetical particles.

While reading the introduction to the Interpretations of the DAMPE electron data, the introduction references how positrons and electrons in large amounts can be used to probe CR sources as well as dark matter. What makes the electron/positron special in this case? Why is it used as oppose to anything else? How is it used?

It is demonstrable that the chains of decay of muons and tauons finally ending in a single electron resp. positron. The intermediate stages of the different decays are caused on the one hand by the higher mass = energy and on the other hand on various internal energy of the decaying particles.

Therefore muons and espacially tauons show superior number decays what means that additional particles arise during decay. This additional particles are caused by pair production. The arising electrons/positrons are demonstrable the elementary building blocks of all particles and atomic nuclei.

I am looking forward to find a free source Monte Carlo toolkit that might be useful in elementary particle simulations. I need the help and advices of experts in Monte Carlo simulations.

I need best simulation softwares for particle physics and nuclear physics

Modern Physics describes four fundamental interactions naming: Strong Nuclear Interaction, Weak Nuclear Interaction, Electromagnetic Interaction and Gravitational Interaction. Among other three fundamental interactions, the three major questions about gravity remained open;

Why the gravity is extremely weak? Hierarchy Problem

Why the gravity is always attractive force? Even anti matter is attracted to itself and to the matter.

Gravity is not unified with other interactions by successful theory like Chromodynamics or Weak Theory.

Supersymmetry theory proposes that the super partners of the existing bosons and fermions are extinguished through some symmetry breaking mechanism… though there are some articles that offers few or no exotic particles other than the SM particles, but it would also be the case (in the theoretical model) that the symmetry breaking may cause polarization either only towards bosons or fermions… if not, why/how nature would choose which fermions and bosons among the super particles are to survive? Further, is it at least theoretically possible that the existing bosons and fermions have their super partners within the observed fermions and bosons? I do understand that in the second proposal the constraint of equal mass will be violated.

According to common understanding the fundamental interactions of the standard model are mediated by the exchange of so-called gauge bosons (photon, gluon etc.). Now, the e.g. number of gauge bosons is related to the gauge group of the corresponding theory. But the wording "exchange particle" is apparently motivated by the graphical representation of Feynman diagrams. I wonder if we would talk and think differently if this tool of organizing your perturbative expansion would not have been invented.

By the way: the background of this question is the following: Since I believe that Feynman diagrams cannot be interpreted realistically, the notion of (virtual) exchange particles appears to me questionable (i.e. based on an artefact, like the specific solution technique of perturbation theory). But perhaps this “exchange” idea could be motivated also differently and independently.

I'm doing a particle physics analysis (jet energy regression) by means deep neural network (in keras with tensorflow backend). I have several features (mostly kinematic variables). I trained my model on the HH->bbbb samples (Di-Higgs decaying to 2 pairs of b and anti-b quarks). I normalized this dataset to zero-mean unit variance (z-score normalization). Now, I want to predict using a different sample (HH->2b2g, di-Higgs decaying to a pair of b quarks and two photons). When predicting this dataset, should I normalize it based on the HH->bbbb statistics? When I try to do it, it doesn't predict well, even giving me negative values of pT (transverse momentum (pT) should be > 0). Should I normalize HH->2b2g samples based on its own statistics instead?

quantum field theory says:::::: the vacuum state is not truly empty but instead contains fleeting electromagnetic waves and particles that pop into and out of existence.

then sound should travel through vacuum.......do sound travel through vacuum?

It is possible to analyse particle decays and their interactions to reconstruct the structures of particles and atomic nuclei in a realistic way. This leads inter alia to the result that atomic nuclei are grids of certain types of particles (light mesons) in the highest order according to the number of particles.

This lattice model described the properties of nuclei very good as the binding energy, the well-defined surface of nuclei, all types of decays and so on.

In particular, the usage of additional particles (quarks) which are invented on a theoretical way is not required.

I am working a paper on it. The calculations based on Siva's Constant 'K' and Equations of particle physics may be useful in separating two Bio field particles(cause for consciousness) of a DNA existing out side of its main body by developing a Technic. This change in DNA out side body will change the Entire body.

If you believe my opinion or not. I want know your opinions on the above questions...

If the Higgs field were zero instead of 246 GeV, would the Higgs boson have the same mass? What if the field is metastable and the next stable value is much higher, say 10^10 GeV, would the mass of Higgs boson change at that value? And by how much?

How can I calculate the sterile neutrino frequency by Boltzmann equation and dY/dT ?

T is temperature

Radiative decay channel and decay rate are attached.

In the conclusion to the attached article I have categorized SR as metaphysics based on five reasons such as 1) insisting on thinking alone by promoting thought experiment rather than real experiment 2) creating thought instruments with unknown and inconsistent characteristics to do thought experiment, etc.

Do you think if this is a fair treatment of SR? Are all five reasons acceptable criteria?

"I thought about quantum mechanics a hundred times more than general relativity, but I still don't understand," Einstein said.

Perhaps the most difficult to understand is the wave-particle duality, which may be because the understanding of it is only in the form of mathematics.In fact, no one can actually verify the wave-particle duality, because the experiment can't verify a single photon.

Electrons orbiting the nucleus of the cycle and the volatility of the particles there are closely linked, we can think of chemical bonds between atoms and atomic are fluctuating, at a certain moment because electronic is only a position on the orbit, and from the time a constantly changing position, the this kind of change has the regularity.When two atoms of electrons near each other, two atoms repel each other, and when electrons in an atom near the nucleus of another atom when they will attract each other, so that can form regularity of volatility.

Inner surface cracks in the double-slit experiment of atom has been in a regular wave conditions, when the particle is trying to through the gap, when near the atom will be fluctuations in the perforated of atomic bomb, a reflection of photonic and electronic electromagnetic ejection in such a state of regular fluctuations, as the accumulation of time and the number of regular interference fringes are formed.The smaller the momentum of a particle is, the larger the Angle of the ejection is, the greater the spacing of the stripes, the longer the wavelength is.

Electronic counter near the double slit to observe, emitting a large number of photon hits the aperture inner surface of atoms, and makes the surface atomic wave interference, can be seen as inhibits such a state of regular wave, the particles will no longer through double slit by regular reflection and ejection, which in turn has emerged two bright stripe.

This is why increasing gap width will not cause interference and diffraction, because of the emitted particles and gap edge contact and collision probability becomes a matter of fact interference and diffraction and crack width, crack of fluctuations, particle momentum, launch position and the Angle of aperture.

We understand that moving particles have wave properties and waves have particle properties. Acceleration of particles in mono- or multiple target context creates waves, but wave creation includes constructive or destructive interference.

Can we explain the existence of radiation free multi particle objects like atomic nuclei, atoms or molecules with destructive interference of waves corresponding to the movement of the particles (atomic nuclei and electrons in case of atoms or molecules), which span the object?

Would this view be equivalent to or deeper as the view with the eigenvalues of the Hamiltonean or the Dirac operator?

Can we extend this view (for atomic nuclei and quarks) to a potentially endless series of higher order particles and higher order radiation? (The higher order radiation has to include destructively interfering particle emission.)

Reliable examples of second order phase transition have not been found. why? Second order phase transitions, L.Landau and his successors (by Yuri Mnyukh )

What is the possibility that I'll get a PhD job for research in String Theory and Particle Physics? I'm currently in my 3rd Year of Undergraduate Studies and have done research work in Photonics. Due to unavailability of faculty specialized in relativity, cosmology, particle physics etc., I chose to do research in Photonics. To manage my interests, I studied relativity, particle physics from online resources. What are the chances that I'll get a PhD job at institutes like Perimeter Institute of Theoretical Physics, Institute of Theoretical Physics, Stanford, Kavli IPMU etc.?

The Standard Model of particle physics describes the universe in terms of Matter (fermions) and Forces (bosons). Particles of matter transfer discrete amounts of energy by exchanging bosons with each other.

Are these forces directly involved in the interaction between fermions (like collision)? In general, how we can describe the mechanism of exchanging bosons?

Subject: Particle physics (theory). I am looking for a way to transform v spinors into u spinors in a decay amplitude's expression. Does anyone have an idea? Thank you very much!

"

**In physics, string theory is a theoretical framework in which the point-like particles of particle physics are replaced by one-dimensional objects called strings. It describes how these strings propagate through space and interact with each other.**" -- Wikipedia.Is there any experimental evidence that some quanton (electron, neutron, proton, photon, so on) ever transmutes into a corpuscle ?

Lots and lots and lots of experimental proofs of their de Broglie wavelength, and Dirac-Schrödinger wave-length, of their de Broglie's intrinsic frequency mc²/h and Dirac-Schrödinger electromagnetic frequency 2 m c²/h.

Lots and lots of experimental proofs of their optical width and optical fuzzy length of each, depending on the experimental condition.

However, these experimental proofs contradict what is taught in every handbook, in every lecture room. What is taught is magical and mystic corpuscles, and calculations of the probability of apparition of magical corpuscle.

But when and how a photon transmutes into corpuscle ?

When and how a proton transmutes into corpuscle ?

When and how a neutron transmutes into corpuscle ?

When and how an electron transmutes into corpuscle ?

For instance, since 1921 the Ramsauer-Townsend effect proves that the electron IS its de Broglie's wave. So the Ramsauer-Townsend effect is heavily censured in every handbooks, in every oral teachings.

So on with the censures of the experimental facts.

Have you an experimental proof of the supposed corpuscles ?