BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Quick Subatomic Physics Question

 
 
8===>Q: alyn
19:51 / 04.01.05
It is said that there are four fources: weak, strong, electromagnetic, gravitic. Weak & strong forces are immensely stronger than electromagnetic & gravitic, but only operate subatomically; electromagnetic is stronger than gravitic by a factor of gazillions.

Okay.

Subatomic forces, the forces at work within the proton of an atom, are "measured" -- that is, theoretically described -- using a language of essential particles called "force particles". Electromagnetism uses photons, gravitation uses gravitons, strong uses gluons, and weak uses weak gauge bosons.

Okay.

Gluons, photons, and gravitons have no mass. Weak gauge bosons have a mass of 86x or 97x the mass of the proton.

WTF? How can they have no mass? What are they made of? Are they real, physical objects, or just a theoretical notation for units of force? If they are units of force, why are they being referred to as particles, and if they are particles, why are they so different from other particles?

Am I missing something?
 
 
grant
20:30 / 04.01.05
There's a simplistic answer to that -- I think it goes like this:

Gluons (and electrons, photons and their ilk) are so small that you can either measure their velocity or their location, but you can't measure both. That's the basis of Heisenberg's uncertainty principle.

When you're talking in terms of velocity/frequency, it's easier to describe them in terms of energy. Like electricity -- it's made of a stream of electrons. Zap! See also: light as a wave.

When you're talking in terms of location, it makes more sense to use the same language you'd use for mass. See also: light as a particle.

It's kind of the big famous riddle of quantum physics.

By the way, I think when you refer to "within the proton" up there, you're really meaning "within the nucleus." I don't know if anything's going on within a proton. There may be component parts, but that's a whole 'nother thing.

Gravitons, by the way, are not gluons. There's a lot of controversy over whether or not they actually exist. In fact, there's even controversy over whether gravity should count as a force -- according to (some interpretations of) Einstein's theories, gravity is better understood as a warp in space, or a property of matter. No one has ever isolated, measured, or otherwise proved the existence of a graviton. So they're not only massless, but also largely imaginary (in the loosest sense of that word).
 
 
grant
20:32 / 04.01.05
That's all written, by the way, with a big fat "Off the top of my head" and "As far as I know" written all over it.

I really don't get gluons.



------

Maybe this entry on "mass" will help, although it gets hard to follow pretty quickly.

Part of what it says is that there are two kinds of mass: real, invariant mass, and relativistic mass, which changes depending on your frame of reference (the mass that appears to increase with acceleration, so if you're accelerating at the same rate as the observed object, there's no change in mass).

Most scientists no longer talk about relativistic mass because it's not useful or productive.

This bit -- on why abandoning the notion of "relativistic mass" is a good idea -- seems most relevant.

One is forced to make statements like "The rest mass of a photon is zero", which sounds slightly odd because a photon can never be at rest, it always travels at the speed of light.


So it could be that masslessness is a function of always traveling at light speed, which seems to be the limit or boundary between mass and energy.
 
 
Lurid Archive
16:46 / 05.01.05
The articles linked from wikipedia seem to suggest that this is a question in relativity, rather than quantum mechanics on the whole. And there, when you do your fudges for velocity, it turns out that photons have no mass.

Its all pretty wierd, but then why shouldn't it be?
 
 
8===>Q: alyn
09:44 / 06.01.05
I still don't understand how forces can have particles. Aren't forces types of motion? Where do the particles come from? Where do they go? What are they made of?
 
 
8===>Q: alyn
09:48 / 06.01.05
Put differently: Photons are just bullshit, aren't they? There are no photons, gluons or gravitons. Isn't "massless" a hifalutin' way of saying "it doesn't exist"?

Am I really smarter than everyone?!?
 
 
Lurid Archive
18:54 / 06.01.05
Isn't "massless" a hifalutin' way of saying "it doesn't exist"?

I don't think so. I mean, if I've understood the links correctly, you could weigh light and you would get a positive number out (only the number corresponds to "relativistic mass" which is what you are used to, but which has limitations as grant said).

Also, forces are not a type of motion. They are a thing that causes a change in motion in something else. So why not a wave/particle mathematical fiction rather than a field acting at a distance mathematical fiction?
 
 
8===>Q: alyn
22:17 / 06.01.05
This is just something that infuriates me, man. A wave is not a particle! You can't have a wave/particle. A wave is motion; a particle is matter. You've got your amber waves of grain, but the grains are not the waves. So, fine, force particles are fictions, but what do the fictions represent? Nothing. It's a handy tool for theoreticians, but it doesn't actually describe anything, rather like the Holy Trinity.

That's right, I said it.
 
 
Lurid Archive
10:59 / 08.01.05
Are you actually asking a question there? I can't tell.
 
 
8===>Q: alyn
11:12 / 08.01.05
Well, it's sort of the same one. It's just that I'm reading one of these "layman's" science books, and I have to start all over again every time. I'm a little frustrated.

What are these particles? Where do they come from? Are they real or not? Because if they're not real, then I have difficulty accepting all the theory built on top of them.
 
 
xenosss
17:40 / 08.01.05
Let me see if I can help at all. I wrote a paper on particle physics for my senior year physics class and touched on this. Hopefully it's understandable (sorry for the length):

------full paper here------

Currently there exist four fundamental forces: gravity, electromagnetism, strong, and weak. The standard model deals with the latter three forces, disregarding gravity because of the force’s infinitesimally small affect at the short distances under which the standard model is used. The gravitational force between two particles is so weak compared to the other forces that it is generally ignored by particle physicists. Gravity is as influential as it is because of the large distances over which it can act (Kane 60).

The most familiar, and second strongest, force described in the standard model is electromagnetism. This force binds electrons and nuclei into atoms, and is responsible for the interaction between atoms and molecules. The mere fact that people do not pass through floors no matter how hard they push, caused by the atoms repelling each other, plainly displays the strength of electromagnetism (Kane 61). The strongest force, aptly named the strong force, is also both attractive and repelling. The strong force binds quarks together to form baryons and mesons to create the multitude of hadrons that exist. Although the strong force is thousands of times stronger than gravity, it acts only over a very short distance and its effects cannot be felt in everyday life (66). The third force, the weak force, acts over even smaller distances and is the weakest force in the standard model (63). Responsible for radiation, the weak force triggers radioactive decay by transforming a neutron into a proton or vice versa (NOVA).

In 1927, Austrian physicist Werner Heisenberg proposed what would soon be known as the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. This principle states that for a particle, “the more precisely the position is determined, the less precisely the momentum is known in this instant, and vice versa” (Cassidy). The more accurately the position is known, the more energy that was used to discover that position. Any energy used excites the particle and changes its momentum, causing a larger change if more energy is used and thus a less accurate view of the particle’s momentum if a highly accurate view of the position is known. Similarly, to find the momentum of a particle, small amounts of energy are used as to leave the particle unmoved. This causes an inaccurate view of the position, becoming more inaccurate as the amount of energy lessens (Cassidy).

Originally intended to explain the uncertainty of knowing both the position and momentum of a particle, the principle can also be applied to energy and time (Gell-Mann 178). Heisenberg also showed there is a similar uncertainty in the precision of energy measurements and how long one takes to do the measurement. It is impossible to say precisely that a particle has certain energy at a certain time; ever increasing precision of energy measurements take ever-longer durations to complete (Greene 115). Over a short enough time interval, the energy of system or particle can wildly fluctuate, with important consequences (116).

When a person pushes a table with their hands, it is plain to see how the force is applied. The person’s hands act directly on the table, applying a force. However, the fundamental forces – gravity, electromagnetism, strong, and weak – seem to act at a distance, and it has been found that particles actually mediate the forces between the matter particles. These particles, known collectively as gauge bosons, are “virtually” exchanged between fermions to mediate the four forces. The various quarks and leptons are able to “borrow” energy for an extremely short interval of time to create a gauge boson. The borrowed energy is then reabsorbed by the receiving quark or lepton. This sequence of events does not violate the law of conservation of energy because energy is returned quickly enough to create an overall equilibrium (Close 46).

The two farthest-reaching bosons are the graviton, the gauge boson for gravity, and the photon, the gauge boson for electromagnetism. Neither has mass and can act over infinite distances. The low energies and zero masses of the graviton and photon allow them to exist for infinitely long duration of time (Kane 55). Alternatively, the strong and weak forces work only on very small scales (10^-13 cm or less). The strong force is mediated by the gluon (which comes in eight flavors), which binds quarks together to form baryons and mesons and protons and neutrons together to form nuclei (66). The weak force is mediated by three particles named W-plus (W+), W-minus (W-), and Z-zero (Z0); the particle used depends on the weak charge of the fermion (57). Gluons also have no mass but large energies while the weak bosons’ masses average ninety times the mass of a proton (55). Because of these large energies and masses, the weak and strong bosons can only exist for short durations of time and thus act over short distances. The gluons and weak bosons can be thought of as massive boulders that can only be pushed for very short distances, while the graviton and photon easily dash around the universe (Greene 124).
 
 
Lurid Archive
02:27 / 09.01.05
What are these particles? Where do they come from? Are they real or not?

Tricky. I don't pretend to know about this in any deep way but, at the risk of sounding like a bit of a wanker, what do you mean by "real"? I mean, take Newton's theory of gravitation and you have this thing called "gravity" that acts instantaneously at a distance between masses to cause a mutual attraction. But what is it? I can see what it does, maybe, but I can't see gravity itself. Is gravity, then, in the Newtonian sense real?

Even that analogy is slightly unsatisfactory because most people accept the concept of gravity. It is familiar, so it becomes part of your mental landscape, and so the need to justify it never arises. I'm trying to point out that this is a bias.

Having said that, I don't think you can just make up any old bollocks. Rather, you construct a theory (almost invariably expressed as a mathematical theory for physics) which makes certain predictions that you test. If it "works" (I'm brushing aside the complexity of this, which is probably central, but let me run here) then you say the theory is useful and you build and develop it until you can destroy it with something "better". At a certain stage, you might want to take a philosophical stance as to what the mathematical terms in your model mean. Certainly some of them can be measured, but measurement itself isn't entirely free from theory. For example, how do you demonstrate the existence of Newtonian gravity, without equating it with the effects it has - this, from a certain point of view, is circular.

I'm going on too long, but a couple more points. This insistence on empirical verification (I know scientists who don't think that economics or even cosmology is really a science) is key and kinda means you can sidestep the philosophical issues when doing science. Mostly scientists just assume these things are real, but aren't too bothered about changing models where things change. Also, one point you hear a lot is that you can't really avoid the math. The analogies - like wave/particle duality - are useful, but limited. I'm not sure that the problems you have with the analogies can really be solved except by crunching numbers, or at least equations. But then I would say that.
 
 
Colonel Kadmon
23:13 / 09.01.05
Non-physicist, so excuse me if this is just pish - but isn't the whole wave model kinda outdated? I mean, waves in what? Surely the idea of an ether or blanket energy that extends everywhere that the waves ripple in went out with Queen Victoria?
 
 
xenosss
00:31 / 10.01.05
I have only a conceptual knowledge of the whole subject, but I think that light (specifically, but all particles in general) has wave-like properties that are described by the Schrodinger equation. It is not that light IS a wave, but that sometimes photons act like particles and sometimes like waves.

More found at Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schr%F6dinger_equation#Schr.F6dinger_wave_equation
 
 
elene
13:24 / 11.01.05
isn't the whole wave model kinda outdated? I mean, waves in
what?


According to Feynman a quantum mechanical particle's behaviour is
described by a field of probability amplitudes. Probability amplitudes
are complex numbers which can be used to calculate the probability of
some property of a quantum entity taking on a particular possible
value. The distribution of probability amplitudes obeys wave-like
equations, the amplitude changing in space-time like a wave does.
Though determining where a particle is will result in finding it at
some particular location, the probability of finding it at any
particular location tends to vary as if we were not dealing with a
particle at all, but rather with a wave.

I very much doubt this view has become outdated in the last twenty
years.

Are probability amplitudes real? They are at least to the extent that
calculating how the world must behave if they do exist leads to an
extremely accurate model of the world we actually experience.

if they're not real, then I have difficulty accepting all the
theory built on top of them.


We're not dealing with entities like gods and angels here, these
things follow well defined rules and we're pretty sure to stop using
them should reality start randomly ignoring the behaviour that defines
them. As far as we know we are dealing with the simplest set of
assumptions that accurately describe reality. That's what we want and
that's what quantum mechanics provides.

Of course what I might mean by reality is itself rather fluid, being
hard near repeatable and measurable events but soft as soon as we move
away from that privileged part of experience.
 
 
Atyeo
10:45 / 12.01.05
I think you have to accept that we don't really know anything about what the universe is, only what we perceive it as.

That may sound a bit wanky but I think it is important to appreciate that all physics theories are just models that fit what we perceive to a very high degree. eg. Newtonian Mechanics superseeded by Relativity.

What is a wave?

Well, what is energy, mass, force, etc.

The question "What does light travel through?" intrigued me as I've also wondered the same thing?

Whacking it in to Google it seems that light is a "self-propagating electromagnetic wave". Electromagnteic waves "power" themselves along by changing their electrical and magnetic properties. I'm yet to find a decent explanation of this.

Anyone?
 
 
couch
08:51 / 21.01.05
Non-physicist, so excuse me if this is just pish - but isn't the whole wave model kinda outdated? I mean, waves in what? Surely the idea of an ether or blanket energy that extends everywhere that the waves ripple in went out with Queen Victoria?

Problem with this, is that it is still easy to prove that light behaves as a wave with simple comprehensive school physics equipment. Read up on Youngs Fringes to see wave effects with light, and the very weird single photon level Youngs Fringe effects that can be observed (with admittedly rather more expensive equipment)
 
 
tom-karika nukes it from orbit
20:43 / 21.01.05
Saying that light (or anything else) is a wave OR a particle is merely a model. You can use whichever is the most convenient

Light IS made of particles. Light IS a wave. It is both, and no-one knows why. You can say that all particles are waves if it helps.
 
 
Perfect Tommy
01:39 / 24.01.05
The way that I model the wave-particle duality enough to tenuously grasp it with my poor monkeybrain is to maintain that when things get really really really really really tiny, a 'particle' is pretty much smeared out into a 'wave.' Or if you prefer, the 'waves' are so tiny they behave as if they were tiny discrete 'particles.'

My belief is that the real problem with photons is not that they are both particles and waves, it is that they are neither—they are 'the things that light is made of.'
 
 
8===>Q: alyn
02:55 / 24.01.05
Okay, see, that starts to work for me. Almost. They are something else entirely that behaves in a way we only partially understand as wavelike or particle-like. I mean, photons can't be particles, it's ridiculous. Things being as they are, you'd have pools of spent, inert light laying all over the place. But then, how wrong are we about all the math we have built on a foundation whose existence we can't imagine? I'm not being a weisenheimer, I'm just asking.
 
 
elene
09:24 / 24.01.05
photons can't be particles, it's ridiculous

When light interacts with anything else, it does so as if one or more
particles with an approximate location, momentum, energy and spin were
interacting. We don't see the electromagnetic field giving up energy
to matter in a continuous stream, but rather in little lumps that
behave like uncharged particles that lack rest mass.

The electromagnetic wave is merely the potential for something to
happen. If something really does happen then it happens as if this
wave of potential has condensed into a particle at the point of
interaction.

In reply to Atyeo's question "what is a wave?" in the context
of self-propagating electromagnetic waves: what's meant by a wave in
physics is a function that varies more or less smoothly in space and
time. A function is a mapping of values to each point of a region.

The electromagnetic waves you refer to are functions that allot a
value of electric and magnetic potential to each point of space. These
potentials are imagined existing at each point of space but with
values that vary smoothly with time. Just as waves propagate on the
rising and falling surface of a pond, so electromagnetic waves
propagate on the rising and falling strengths of the electric and
magnetic fields. This is the classical rather than the quantum
mechanical view of this phenomenon. In the quantum model it's
something very like the probability of measuring a beam's energy or a
magnet's force that propagates like a wave.

It's all about mathematical models that provide accurate descriptions
of measurable properties and it's real in much the same way a path or
a recipe is real, I think.

Does that help at all?
 
 
Lurid Archive
15:05 / 24.01.05
how wrong are we about all the math we have built on a foundation whose existence we can't imagine?

Can you clarify what you mean by this question, Q? Because I am not entirely sure what you are asking. I mean is the math wrong internally? Nope. Is the model "wrong"? This is a complex question that doesn't really have a satisfactory answer. All models are "wrong", in the sense of being imperfect and incomplete, but this is a notion of wrongness that is about as close to absolutely right as we ever get. What I suspect you are really asking about is the correspondence between a math heavy theory and the analogies that have been used to explain it and which don't bear the weight sufficiently to allow you to do any analysis.

Well, there is a reason that physics uses a lot of heavy math. (Did you know that physics used to have a reputation in mathematics of being scared of doing hard sums?) The analogies are teaching aids, but increasingly deficient ones once you get to the hard stuff. So light isn't a particle like billiard balls, nor a wave out on the ocean. Rather, the quantum mechanical description of it is so far beyond our realm of experience that our natural language approximations don't quite work.
 
 
8===>Q: alyn
21:59 / 24.01.05
Does that help at all?

Sort of, but not really. This talk of potentials as actuals also bothers me. Regardless of whether we can observe or measure something, the something has to be there, and it has to be made of something else. The somethings can behave very strangely, but you can't have them simply not be there. And if you can't say where or what they are... It wouldn't hold up in court, I'm saying.

LA, yeah, I think you did understand me and the ball is in my court, I guess. You're always so patient with these impertinences. I'll shout if I have further difficulties.
 
 
Lurid Archive
08:56 / 25.01.05
"Impertinences"? Don't be silly, Q. Often the best way to understand something is to try to smash it, in an open minded kind of a way.
 
 
elene
09:40 / 25.01.05
Regardless of whether we can observe or measure something, the
something has to be there, and it has to be made of something else.


Why's that? We know nothing and can never know anything about what's
not observed except by extrapolating from what is observed. Physics
does this and finds that the connection is largely random.

When a very weak light falls on a photographic plate it activates the
plate not uniformly but randomly, one grain here and another there.
After some time the plate will reflect the intensity pattern of the
light falling on it, but this pattern is made up of individual dots
and these only reflect the pattern in a statistical sense. Some grains
exposed to lower intensity light will (likely) be activated before
some exposed to a higher intensity.

We conclude from this that light is absorbed locally, in lumps, and
the rules governing exactly where and when these packets will be
absorbed are rather stochastic than deterministic.

Applying this insight lets us explain various other phenomena who's
explanation according to classical wave theory led to demonstrably
false conclusions (e.g. the ultraviolet catastrophe).

I'm afraid the world always was post-modern.
 
 
grant
17:06 / 25.01.05
Splain "ultraviolet disaster"!
 
 
elene
18:20 / 25.01.05
Ultraviolet Catastrophe (more or less):

According to classical electromagnetic theory, a hot object, like the sun,
should emit radiation equally in all ranges of frequency, from below radio
waves to above x-rays. A consequence of this is that, because the number
of emitting frequencies is unlimited, so too must be the total energy given
off at any moment. This is of course impossible, and it's called the
ultraviolet catastrophe because the equations go increasingly wrong at the
high frequency end, the ultraviolet and above.

Postulating, as Max Planck did, that radiation can only occur in lumps of
a certain minimum size (quanta) proportional to the emission frequency
solves this problem because at high enough frequencies there just isn't
enough energy available to enable the creation of an appropriate quantum,
and there is therefore no emission.
 
 
tom-karika nukes it from orbit
19:29 / 25.01.05
That's a much clearer explanation than the over-mathsy one I've been taught mint.

The original classical model for radiation from a black body, that presumes light waves to be nice old fashioned continuous waves, is made by imagining light in reflective box, finding normal-modes of the light, each with energy kT etc... It gives the same conclusion but none of the comprehension. It also produces the dotted line on this graph. As the wavelength of the light is very small, the intensity of the light at that wavelength is going up and up.

If you model the light as coming out in photons, you get the pointed peaks:

 
 
elene
06:02 / 26.01.05
Thanks Tom,

I over-simplified the whole business I know. I really wanted to leave
out blackbodies, cavities and modes, and I've forgotten all the math.

This is a very good, and quite detailed explanation of just how
infinitely wrong classical theory is on this point and why, I think.

Blackbody Radiation
 
  
Add Your Reply