Scientifically speaking, how did all particles come to have the same mass/spin/charge?

[beer]

This is, of course, a fundamental question that may seem incredibly far-reaching. So we have established charge, spin, and mass of neutrons, protons, electrons, not to mention the other particles, to an accuracy of one part in almost 40?

Now assuming that the total number of particles in the universe is on the order of 10^80....what events in the big bang caused such uniformity?

 

[WinkOsmosis]

Proto-God.

 

[iwearnosox]

Part of string theory speculates that the "other dimensions" regulate particle limits and behaviours.

 

[labrat25]

nobody entirely knows... that's what the theoretical physicists are working on... we know that protons, neutrons, etc (not electrons) are made of quarks... which can be explained by string theory (in part)... but from there nobody knows yet

 

[Goosemaster]

Limits

...that horrible Sh!!t from calc has other applications.....

 

[beer]

Originally posted by: Sifl
Part of string theory speculates that the "other dimensions" regulate particle limits and behaviours.

That's more or less what I was looking for. Do you know what the Standard Model says about this, which is the currently accepted explanation for the universe (altough not necessarily correct)?

 

[silverpig]

What do you mean exactly? Are you asking why all electrons are the same and why all protons are the same? Or is it something else?

 

[silverpig]

Originally posted by: beer

Originally posted by: Sifl
Part of string theory speculates that the "other dimensions" regulate particle limits and behaviours.

That's more or less what I was looking for. Do you know what the Standard Model says about this, which is the currently accepted explanation for the universe (altough not necessarily correct)?

The standard model is the model for particle physics. It doesn't incorporate things like general relativity, and so doesn't include gravity.

 

[iwearnosox]

I don't know beer, I just watch a lot of pbs.

I can't wait until Cern's accelerator is finished, though. Part of their goal is to watch graviton particles float into the other dimensions- could you imagine if it happens?

 

[BigPoppa]

Anyone else find it hard to believe that strings are the basic building blocks? Everytime we say that, we look a bit deeper and everything gets turned upside down. What if there isn't a universal basic building block?

 

[silverpig]

Originally posted by: Sifl
I don't know beer, I just watch a lot of pbs.

I can't wait until Cern's accelerator is finished, though. Part of their goal is to watch graviton particles float into the other universes- could you imagine if it happens?

I'm more excited about the possibility of finally discovering the Higgs. Of course gravitons would be nice too

Also a bound state of 3 top quarks would be neat to see too... is it the Higgs, or something else?

 

[beer]

Originally posted by: silverpig
What do you mean exactly? Are you asking why all electrons are the same and why all protons are the same? Or is it something else?

I am asking what established such uniformity in this universe. Something obviously happened to give every fundamental particle the exact same traits as every other particle of that type. For example, why couldn't protons, for example, vary a few percentage points from one to the other in mass and charge, why are they exactly identical for all points in the universe?

 

[silverpig]

Originally posted by: BigPoppa
Anyone else find it hard to believe that strings are the basic building blocks? Everytime we say that, we look a bit deeper and everything gets turned upside down. What if there isn't a universal basic building block?

There are a LOT of other theories besides string theory. No one has ever observed a string, so string theory is just a promising mathematical tool right now.

Many of these theories do make reference to at least one more dimension.

 

[iwearnosox]

She's not fat, she just has an unfortunate Higgs boson profile.

 

[fredtam]

Did they ever decide if the speed of gravity was instantanious or the speed of light?

 

[beer]

Originally posted by: fredtam
Did they ever decide if the speed of gravity was instantanious or the speed of light?

See Einstein's General Relativity. Gravity is transmitted through the bending of space through time, in a sentence.

 

[silverpig]

Originally posted by: beer

Originally posted by: silverpig
What do you mean exactly? Are you asking why all electrons are the same and why all protons are the same? Or is it something else?

I am asking what established such uniformity in this universe. Something obviously happened to give every fundamental particle the exact same traits as every other particle of that type. For example, why couldn't protons, for example, vary a few percentage points from one to the other in mass and charge, why are they exactly identical for all points in the universe?

Because then they wouldn't be protons.

One could argue that a slightly heavier chargeless proton is a neutron... Anything that isn't an electron isn't an electron

 

[fredtam]

Originally posted by: beer

Originally posted by: fredtam
Did they ever decide if the speed of gravity was instantanious or the speed of light?

See Einstein's General Relativity. Gravity is transmitted through the bending of space through time, in a sentence.

It would help answer your quetion. Many multidimensional theories depend on gravity being instantaneous.

 

[beer]

Originally posted by: fredtam

Originally posted by: beer

Originally posted by: fredtam
Did they ever decide if the speed of gravity was instantanious or the speed of light?

See Einstein's General Relativity. Gravity is transmitted through the bending of space through time, in a sentence.

It would help answer your quetion. Many multidimensional theories depend on gravity being instantaneous.

We've already observed that gravity isn't instantaneous. It's a fundamental concept in physics. It seems to me that any new framework would still have to obey existing observations and hasn't this been proven for 50 years now?

 

[beer]

Originally posted by: silverpig


One could argue that a slightly heavier chargeless proton is a neutron... Anything that isn't an electron isn't an electron

That's the kind of answer I was expecting. But it doesn't answer the question. Perhaps a better question is, 'what prevented it from being a haphazard collection of random particles with random charges, spins, and masses?'

 

[fredtam]

Originally posted by: beer

Originally posted by: fredtam

Originally posted by: beer

Originally posted by: fredtam
Did they ever decide if the speed of gravity was instantanious or the speed of light?

See Einstein's General Relativity. Gravity is transmitted through the bending of space through time, in a sentence.

It would help answer your quetion. Many multidimensional theories depend on gravity being instantaneous.

We've already observed that gravity isn't instantaneous. It's a fundamental concept in physics. It seems to me that any new framework would still have to obey existing observations and hasn't this been proven for 50 years now?

No it has not been proven one way or the other.The first experiment I know of capable of observing the speed of gravity was done in January of 03 and is heavily debated.

Anyway if you have a basic building block created in the beginning and you put a couple together to form something else the result will be the same each time you put two together. Oversimplified.

 

[silverpig]

Originally posted by: beer

Originally posted by: silverpig


One could argue that a slightly heavier chargeless proton is a neutron... Anything that isn't an electron isn't an electron

That's the kind of answer I was expecting. But it doesn't answer the question. Perhaps a better question is, 'what prevented it from being a haphazard collection of random particles with random charges, spins, and masses?'

Well things are quantized. So there are set values of spin and charge. Everything must be an integer multiple of hbar in spin, and charge... well that's a bit different... maybe 1/3 or 1... depending on what you want to call it. Then there's colour for quarks/gluons... basically there are set minimum bits you can add. Nothing says you can't have a spin 20 charge 12 particle AFAIK, it's just that such a particle would be a bound state of a ton of quarks in a very elaborate unstable configuration. Such a state would nearly instantateously decay into a more stable configuration. I guess you could say it's all about finding stable states.

An analogy would be: if you threw a bunch of marbles into a room, why don't you ever see a stack of marbles in the middle of the floor? It COULD happen, but they would rather be randomly distributed around the floor, in the lowest energy, highest entropy state they can.

 

[fredtam]

Originally posted by: silverpig

Originally posted by: beer

Originally posted by: silverpig


One could argue that a slightly heavier chargeless proton is a neutron... Anything that isn't an electron isn't an electron

That's the kind of answer I was expecting. But it doesn't answer the question. Perhaps a better question is, 'what prevented it from being a haphazard collection of random particles with random charges, spins, and masses?'

Well things are quantized. So there are set values of spin and charge. Everything must be an integer multiple of hbar in spin, and charge... well that's a bit different... maybe 1/3 or 1... depending on what you want to call it. Then there's colour for quarks/gluons... basically there are set minimum bits you can add. Nothing says you can't have a spin 20 charge 12 particle AFAIK, it's just that such a particle would be a bound state of a ton of quarks in a very elaborate unstable configuration. Such a state would nearly instantateously decay into a more stable configuration. I guess you could say it's all about finding stable states.

An analogy would be: if you threw a bunch of marbles into a room, why don't you ever see a stack of marbles in the middle of the floor? It COULD happen, but they would rather be randomly distributed around the floor, in the lowest energy, highest entropy state they can.

I'll go along with this. It also has a lot to do with the conditions under which they are formed ie. temperature of the early universe. If there is a physics at the beginning its not hard to understand that things created as a result of certain conditions are going to be the same. Yes other particles may have existed but were lost due to being unstable. Its like us making new elements that decay quickly. Under certain conditions those same elements may be stable and continue to exist.

 

[beer]

Yes other particles may have existed but were lost due to being unstable. Its like us making new elements that decay quickly. Under certain conditions those same elements may be stable and continue to exist.

I think this idea. Let's run with it for a minute. So what you are saying is that other particles may have existed but were 'lost.' This presents a paradox of sorts. Fundamental particles cannot be randomly 'lost' without violating conservation principles, and fundamental particles cannot decay. Hypothetically speaking, you are saying that a particle with, say, half the charge and twice the mass of a proton would have been 'lost' due to stability. How would it have decayed into anything, then, or been lost without violating conservation principles?

 

[fredtam]

Originally posted by: beer

Yes other particles may have existed but were lost due to being unstable. Its like us making new elements that decay quickly. Under certain conditions those same elements may be stable and continue to exist.

I think this idea. Let's run with it for a minute. So what you are saying is that other particles may have existed but were 'lost.' This presents a paradox of sorts. Fundamental particles cannot be randomly 'lost' without violating conservation principles, and fundamental particles cannot decay. Hypothetically speaking, you are saying that a particle with, say, half the charge and twice the mass of a proton would have been 'lost' due to stability. How would it have decayed into anything, then, or been lost without violating conservation principles?

Could it not exist under certain conditions and when those conditions no longer exist decay at a very rapid rate.

It has long been considered to be a stable particle, but recent developments of grand unification models have suggested that it might decay with a half-life of about 10^31 years. Experiments are underway to see if such decays can be detected. Decay of the proton would violate the conservation of baryon number, and in doing so would be the only known process in nature which does so.

Like the idea now?
more