Notices
Results 1 to 12 of 12
Like Tree1Likes
  • 1 Post By Physicist

Thread: Proton and electron making machine

  1. #1 Proton and electron making machine 
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Location
    Sydney - Australia
    Posts
    26
    Hi All,

    New to the forum, so I don't know what has been discussed before, but it sure is a puzzle to me why electrons and protons are so uniform in size. The electron with energy of 511 keV and the proton with some 938 MeV. No measurable variation in their mass. What kind of a machine manufactures these particles in such volumes and with such precision?

    Do we even have a theory to explain why they are this size?

    If one wanted to manufacture particles, would a big bang be the machine of choice, or would you go for something smaller that continuously prodused the matter particles?

    Steven
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #2  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    551
    Quote Originally Posted by StevenS
    Hi All,

    New to the forum, so I don't know what has been discussed before, but it sure is a puzzle to me why electrons and protons are so uniform in size.
    Because each electron is identical to every other electron. When two particles are created in identically the same way then there's every reason to assume that they'll have exactly the same properties, especially if the material they're made of is all identical. Suppose you have an engine which you have to assemble from parts and you know that the parts are all identical to the same part made for another identical engine to your ability to measure any difference between them. Then you'd expect them to be exactly the same engine when you've assembled them. That's how it is with particle physics. The only difference is that an electron is a fundamental entity and as such it's not made of anything else.

    Quote Originally Posted by StevenS
    Do we even have a theory to explain why they are this size?
    I'm not a particle physicist so I'm not sure. By size you must mean, for the electron, charge and mass since the electron is a point sized object.

    Quote Originally Posted by StevenS
    If one wanted to manufacture particles, would a big bang be the machine of choice, or would you go for something smaller that continuously prodused the matter particles?
    Nobody knows how to do either so we can't answer that question.
    johnzxcv likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #3  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    out there
    Posts
    306
    From a practical point of view one can obtain electrons from equipment that is commercially available. Sources exist for protons, neutrons, positrons etc. It becomes a case of accessability, cost, regulations, etc.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #4  
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Location
    Sydney - Australia
    Posts
    26
    @ picpopedy,

    This wasn't excactly my question, I know how to separate electrons and protons, or at least I think I do (last time I looked I had a patent on an ion source).
    https://www.google.com/patents/WO200...ed=0CB0Q6AEwAA

    My question was much broader, If you wanted to make billion and billions of identical particles, would your tool of choice be a big bang?

    The answer is probably no, one would rather implement some continous process, but what and how?

    Steven
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #5  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    375
    Quote Originally Posted by StevenS View Post
    @ picpopedy,

    This wasn't excactly my question, I know how to separate electrons and protons, or at least I think I do (last time I looked I had a patent on an ion source).
    https://www.google.com/patents/WO200...ed=0CB0Q6AEwAA

    My question was much broader, If you wanted to make billion and billions of identical particles, would your tool of choice be a big bang?

    The answer is probably no, one would rather implement some continous process, but what and how?

    Steven
    Your question implicitly assumes that the method of manufacture has an influence on the constitution of the particle so created. That's true for macroscopic objects, but you're talking about fundamental particles (or minimal assemblages of such).

    Electrons, for example, have no substructure (that we're aware of, anyway). So, no matter what machine is used to make them, they will be identical.

    Protons do have a substructure, but the constituents are again fundamental, so a proton is a proton is a proton. There's no "sort of proton" that a putative imperfect machine might churn out.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #6  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    341
    In reply to StevenS, re: your #1 post.

    Cheers!

    I think a Star would "fit the bill" for a continuous production method.


    (Thanks for reading!)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #7  
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Location
    Sydney - Australia
    Posts
    26
    Quote Originally Posted by tk421 View Post
    Electrons, for example, have no substructure (that we're aware of, anyway). So, no matter what machine is used to make them, they will be identical.
    Protons do have a substructure, but the constituents are again fundamental, so a proton is a proton is a proton. There's no "sort of proton" that a putative imperfect machine might churn out.
    The beauty of this question is that it is such a puzzle, fortunately for physics there are still puzzles, otherwise we would all go and become accountants.

    If one proposed two scenarios, one where all the particles were created in a big bang, which underwent an inflationary stage and then settled down to become H atoms, vs, another scenario where H atoms were churned out by the trillions, then which theory seems more intuitive?

    To me at least the latter seems more likely. Gerry Nightingale proposed a star, but normal stars simply do not have the temperature nor energies to churn out new particles with 938 MeV, but black holes, or Schwartschild objects do, and it is very likely that all galaxies have such objects at their cores. If hypothetically these objects somehow recycled old matter into new particles without absorbing any new matter into its core, then this would be a mechanism whereby particles of constant uniform mass could be created.

    I do not understand why it is believed that black holes can grow arbitrarily big, this would imply that matter actually has to fall into a black hole. There is a rational argument as to why that can not physically happen. The SR radius is by definition the point where matter has converted its entire potential energy into velocity, ie what was solid rest mass has become a wavelike photon, with no rest mass that can be added to the mass of the black hole.

    It can be shown that these photons have around 938 MeV of energy, and it seems plausible that Dirac particle pairs of consistent size would be created at the black hole horizon from these photons. We would not be able to see the creation of these particles from our vantage point, because they travel perpendicular to our three dimensions of space, one particle of mass 468 MeV travels forward in time, and the other of identical mass 468 MeV travels backwards in time.

    If this is the case, the newly created particles only appear to have enough kinetic energy to reach the outher edges of the Galaxy, suggesting to me that Galaxies are more or less self contained objects, that make their own matter.

    Frankly, there is no need for a big bang in this scenario, because at the moment of particle pair creation, space along with time is also created, so looking back at this event from our frame of reference the universe will appear as a point particle, and what we assume is inflation, may have been the initial accelleration during the particle creation.

    I should like to point out that my ideas are based on the effects of special relativity and should not differ from the standard model, so I am not proposing anything inconsistent with current physics here. It is an alternative view which agrees better with existing quantium mechanics than the current view.

    Steven
    Last edited by StevenS; 09-07-2014 at 01:21 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #8  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    997
    SteveS, if antiparticles travel backwards in time how do they ever manage to anhiliate particles?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #9  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    out there
    Posts
    306
    Steve, you write of manufacturing or churning out billions and billions or trillions of particles, atoms...From your background I am sure that you know that those numbers are a tiny amount of matter.

    To put things in perspective a gram mole contains 6 x 10^23 atoms. A gram mole of carbon has a mass of 12 grams etc..
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #10  
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    341
    "Magic" particles w/"magic" abilities seem to clear the entire question up...if a particle can "travel backward in time" and "make more different particles from itself" which in turn means

    these particles have even stronger "magic"...well, I think this is wonderful!


    (Thanks for reading!)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #11  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    375
    Quote Originally Posted by StevenS View Post
    Yes, there is a fair amount of speculation in my hypothesis, but there are more facts to back it up on my site. {URL excised}

    I should like to point out that my theory is based on the effects of special relativity and should not differ from the standard model, so I am not proposing anything inconsistent with current physics here. It is an alternative view which agrees better with existing quantium mechanics than the current view.

    Steven
    Ah, I see. So you weren't actually interested in an answer to your question at all. You were simply trying to drive traffic to your website.

    That's a form of spam, and it's frowned upon.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #12  
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Location
    Sydney - Australia
    Posts
    26
    SteveS, if antiparticles travel backwards in time how do they ever manage to anhiliate particles?
    jilan,

    Good question, the four dimensions x, y, z, t are all the same, so the t axis for one observer could be the x axis for another observer. This means if we create a particle pair in a laboratory here on earth, the particle and anti-particle travel forward and backward along the x, y or z axis, but a particle pair created at the horizon of a black hole travel along the t axis when viewed from our perspective. Consequently annihilation takes as long as it takes thye age of a Universe.

    picpobedy, yes billions was just a figure of speach. not sure what the number of elementary particles in the universe is

    tk421, I respect the rules of your forum and will not mention it again, I am just interested in stimulating thought and discussion around the subject of assymmetric observer potential.

    Steven
    Reply With Quote  
     

Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •