definition of a particle?

[KickAssClown]

Ok, lacking the math I can' claim expertise, however Partical physics and mass theory are my favorite areas of interest, and so are my forte.

A particle is conventionally looked at as point-like and often treated as a ridgit body, though often is not and has elastic properties. A wave is formed from a statistical distribution of points across an area. All energy, and therefore all mass, that we know how to observe is a traverse wave pattern, that is three planes with the dimensions of x, y, z, and t.

Quantum physics admits that we don't have the observational capacity to know everything about a particle, but makes up for this weakness with the ability to come up with statistical distributions.

Also included in the observational limitations is:

Originally Posted by Infamous

Because there is no space empty of field

This is unsupported. It's one possible interpetation of the data. My interpetation based on a number of phenomena, and some key respects in quantum physics is this. Space-time is localized to bodies of matter (not to be mistaken with mass), that our observational capabilies are limited in all respects to matter. Mass is matter, mass is energy. Energy is matter. Vacuum or void or nothing, whatever you wish to call it is without matter and therefore by limitation of composition, unobservable.

It is said that there is no space empty of field, I contend that there is no observable space empty of field, anywhere we go there we are and so are our fields.

What is a particle? A particle is a body of matter. What is a fundamental particle? A non-devisible body of matter, that is singular in expression, that is point-like, and a ridgit body, without elastic properties. Another name for a fundamental particle might be Ideal Particle. What is matter? well, that's a hard one, but my crack at it is this: Matter is. Void, or vacuum is not.

Matter is strictly conserved, it is neither created nor destroyed.

[Farsight]

I think the word "particle" causes an awful lot of problems in physics. So many articles/programmes/papers/people talk about particles (such as photons) as if they're tiny billiard balls. They can't be.

Think of long wave radio. The photon here is a self-propagating distortion hundreds of metres long. A travelling warp, if you like, in the "electric dimension". It has no mass because there's nothing actually there, but it has momentum and can make things move. An ocean wave is similar, it can knock you over just as if you'd been hit in the chest with a medicine ball. But whilst it felt like a medicine ball, there is no medicine ball, and no billiard ball particle. Just something topological.

I rather think that all "particles" are topological. Maybe they're standing waves, or discontinuities, or peaks, or folds, or knots. I'm not sure. But IMHO they ain't little bullets made out of stuff.

Ask yourself this: in string theory, what are the strings made out of?

[HydrogenBond]

I rather think that all "particles" are topological. Maybe they're standing waves, or discontinuities, or peaks, or folds, or knots. I'm not sure. But IMHO they ain't little bullets made out of stuff.

The only problem with particles being discontinuities, peaks, folds or knots is that alternations within the waves, by impacting the position of the peaks, should allow discontinuous movement of matter, which is not normally observed. For example, if one placed a boat (particle) in a pool, one can change the wave interference grid, i.e, splash harder or deeper, causing the boat to move around. Without particles, altering the standing waves allows discontinuous beaming of crests to another location, which is not usually observed by matter. Particles move in a continuous way to a new location and not via wave crest discontinuities.

Another way to look at it is if one uses an interference grid of waves to define particles, how can one just crest move around the grid, with all the rest fixed?. I can take the particle boat and pull it along any wave pattern because it is not defined by it, but only influenced by it. As an experient set up a standing wave pattern, and try to scoop out a crest and make it move around the pool. It will constantly reform in the orginal position due to the standing waves. The boat can sail over the crests and can define any position in the waves because it is not defined by them but it exists apart from them. This is the nature of particle matter.

[Tim_Lou]

i think perhaps if we discuss about the creation of a "particle" we might be able to figure something out.

let's say...2 high energy photons interact, forming one electron and one positron. in terms of waves. what exactly happens when the 2 wave functions interact with each other creating a "discontinuity" in the electromagnetic field function. (also an impulse of gravitation field would results since "matters" suddenly appear)

or let's look at the destruction of particles. let's say one electron and one positron collide, the gravitional field suddenly vanishes. (it should result in a "gravitional impulses" travelling outward). the electromagnetic fields become continuous and well-defined in all space and time.... well what exactly happens?

[Erasmus00]

Originally Posted by HydrogenBond

Particles move in a continuous way to a new location and not via wave crest discontinuities.

Quantum theory disagrees. Consider the first excited state of a particle in a box. The particle can be in the left or right half of the well, but never the middle.
-Will

[HydrogenBond]

One must make a distinction between virtual particles and real particles. Much of quantum physics is concerned with virtual particles which may be better explained with waves. Real particles is what chemistry is made of. Try to do the same things with any of the three basic particles of chemistry.

If we compare the two there are differences. What I call real particles last almost forever, while virtual particles don't last. The first contain mass, while the latter is mostly relativistic mass. If we put aside what human can make in the lab and just focus on what is already here, things add up a little differently. If instead we focus on synthetic matter...

For example, in an atom smasher, how does one factor out all the relativistic mass induced in say protons, when they smash. Much of this energy goes into virtual particle states that we assume are part of the original proton. I would have to question that assumption, since standard states of matter plus energy input equals standard and synthetic output products.

For example, if I was to add energy into water to form radicals that are a combination of O and H, i.e, wide spectrum (OH., O2H. HO2H., etc), this does not imply that water is composed of all these radicals. The energy imput is creating the equilibrium state and has little to do with ambient water but is expressing water in a high energy environment. Under those conditions, these radicals may appear to form randomly, since one cannot fully control the artificial environment. If one looked at water at low energy, the results come out differently with none of these states possible. In liquid was you get maybe ions (pH) but no radicals.

I am no saying atom smasher data is useless. It does tell us about the state of common matter in high energy environments like during the creation of the universe. But those were transitions states of common matter that have little to do with the steady state arrangements that are viewed in the modern universe. Virtual may have been the rule at the beginning with real the exception. But now real is the rule and virtual the acception. Virtual does occur but it is number 10 on the roulette wheel, with all the rest of the numbers being real particles. I am not a betting man, but the best odds seem obvious.

[InfiniteNow]

Originally Posted by HydrogenBond

Real particles is what chemistry is made of. Try to do the same things with any of the three basic particles of chemistry.

If a molecule or atom is made of smaller particles, and those particles exhibit qualities such as virtual and real, would not the molecules which they compose have similar properties? To claim that chemistry is not at all influenced by the impact of virtual particle and antiparticle pairs seems excessive. These pairs appear very much to exist, so would do so also in the halls of the chemistry department.


Also, check this out:

http://www.faqs.org/docs/qp/chap07.html

With de Broglie's principle, we can also extend this to electrons and all other matter particles, and hence account for their wave nature (and hence the double-slit experiment). They have been experimentally found to be correct; in 1994, interference fringes, a typical characteristic of waves, were generated with beams of iodine molecules, which are about 500,000 times more massive than electrons.

[Aireal]

Tim_Lou
Here is a link to Dr. Milo Wolf's paper on the scalar wave structure of an electron. http://www.quantummatter.com/body_point.html

Infamous
You may also find it of interest, as it decribes the electron as the intersection of two scalar waves, creating a standing wave center. Very much like your idea of Localized Orbital Energy Flux.

CraigD
Check out the link also, because it shows how fields can be used to explain the action of particles.

Popular
You may like it also, as it is based on standing waves.

HydrogenBond
I am glad you pointed out the differance between virtual and real particles in this thread, as that is one very important point that causes confusion. Another point that needs clearing is we are talking about scalar waves not electromagnetic wave it at some points in this thread, the two are not the same.

[FRIPRO]

Originally Posted by Turtle

String theory is an attempt to describe a "particle" as other than a speherical dimensionless point. It describes the particle as a vibrating string and/or membrane.
A person would not, could not, should not, observe a particle without another particle. Chirality rules duality.

Fairbairn states how to understand a particle, is to understant Newton's Ether. Fairbairn's constant kf is his universal constant, of Newton's elusive Ether atmosphere of the Universe, and this constant is gram-seconds (calculated at k f = 7.371963x 10 -48* g sec) he calls the wit particle; This an may explain much of the "dark matter'' in space.**

Measurements show that "this dark matter", must make up about 73+% percent of the universe, but which has yet to be seen. The question to Physics lovers, is: how do you detect a particle that is x 10 -48 grams at a frequency of one hertz (In a time period of one second)

In Newton's "Ether Sea" (no wonder the dark matter can not be seen!
http://www.fripro.com/Univese.html

Fairbairn also theorizes that no matter what direction the telescope takes us in the megascopic -- or the microscope in the microscopic, the end results will be the "Wit" particles that makes up all matter and dark matter and the Universe. Newton's ether ! Refer to article at: nothing .*A Wit particel is unipole, has not charge or magnetic field.

Fairbairn gives the Ether particle mass a name "Wit": a "Wit" is 7.371963x 10-48* grams.* Websters dictionary definition for "Wit" is the limit of one's mental resources; also , at (one's) wits' end (Further translated to -- that which is the smallest mass particle one can imagine or measure)

[Erasmus00]

Originally Posted by HydrogenBond

One must make a distinction between virtual particles and real particles. Much of quantum physics is concerned with virtual particles which may be better explained with waves. Real particles is what chemistry is made of. Try to do the same things with any of the three basic particles of chemistry.

The quantum effect I was referring to (wave function for a particle in a box) would be true of electrons, protons, neutrons, etc. It has nothing at all to do with virtual particles, but standard non-relativistic quantum.

While it is an obvious idealization (you cannot build an infinite potential well) I would argue that the same effect (particles can be at a or b but do not cross some intermediary) can be seen in diffraction experiments (also with neutrons,electrons,protons). The potential well is just an easy case to consider.

Finally I wanted to point out that your idea of "real" and "virtual" particles is quite different from the distinction as made in quantum physics. Perhaps using terminology that doesn't overlap with already defined terms would be less confusing to the casual reader.
-Will