Einstein wins again! Quarks obey relativity laws, Large Hadron Collider finds

[Unclear Engineer]

What's most interesting to me is when hadrons split into quarks and the products of this fission have a mass greater than the original, often tens or even hundreds of times more. Does this mean that in a bound state the mass of the quarks decreases, or that they are less affected by gravity?

It takes a lot of additional energy to split hadrons into quarks. I think that energy is what becomes the greater mass of the separate quarks. That is why it takes powerful "atom smashers" like CERN to make collisions with enough energy to release quarks.

it is the opposite of fissioning something like uranium 235, where the mass of the resulting particles is slightly lower, and the difference is the energy released by the fission process, calculated by E = mc^2..

 

[Helio]

Helio, The statement that things follow "straight" lines through "bent space" is the problem. There are no "contours" in that statement.

Hmmm, of course there are contours around a mass. The gravitational field strength can be mapped in contour lines. Any change in radial distance from the mass requires a change in PE. Staying on the contour -- imagined as "straight" -- involves going around in circles. It's that association that must be imagined, or at least, it's what I do with it. It's not meant to be an accurate analogy, especially when compounded with the path of light as you note, but a way to offer a hint of what GR may be attempting to say to us in its deep math equations.

 

[Unclear Engineer]

We already know that there are contours of gravitational attraction around masses. And, we can already compute the trajectories of objects along or across those contours. The problem with the "bent space" analogy is that it is trying to replace those contours that we are familiar with by claiming that they are actually "straight" paths, that are "bent" by the effects of the mass. But, the bending obviously would need to depend on the speed of an object.

Remember, that is an attempt to explain GRT to the masses. People normally think of a straight line as something they can sight down with one eye. So, if light goes one way and the satellite goes off another way, which is the "straight line" that is being followed because "there really isn't a force of gravity, it is just bent space'?

 

[George²]

It takes a lot of additional energy to split hadrons into quarks. I think that energy is what becomes the greater mass of the separate quarks. That is why it takes powerful "atom smashers"

This seems to be logical, but I can't see is like right or for enough precise explanation.

 

[Unclear Engineer]

I am not going to go do the math. I suggest you Google something like "quark mass vs hadron mass" or "baryon mass". I did that and got things like this: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/207644/quarks-in-a-hadron-where-does-the-mass-come-from , plus other search results.

 

[Helio]

We already know that there are contours of gravitational attraction around masses. And, we can already compute the trajectories of objects along or across those contours. The problem with the "bent space" analogy is that it is trying to replace those contours that we are familiar with by claiming that they are actually "straight" paths, that are "bent" by the effects of the mass. But, the bending obviously would need to depend on the speed of an object.

Agreed. I've yet to find any respectable analogy that truly helps me understand GR, so I take what I can get and try to use as much imagination as I can muster.

Remember, that is an attempt to explain GRT to the masses. People normally think of a straight line as something they can sight down with one eye. So, if light goes one way and the satellite goes off another way, which is the "straight line" that is being followed because "there really isn't a force of gravity, it is just bent space'?

Light, however, may be so unique (constant regardless of any other's reference frame) that an expert could explain this in some reasonable fashion. As much as I avoid GR because of the math requirements, this is the sort of thing I'd like explained.

 

[Agnosco Ignis]

I appreciate the Feynman quote: "I would rather have questions that can’t be answered than answers that can’t be questioned.”

But, I have a problem with "Physics is fully aware that photons of light or any other energy level [or ‘frequency’] DO NOT interfere with each other, therefore it should be known that such an interaction cannot be responsible for the patterns observed in the double-slit experiment." My problem with that is the double slit experiment is looking at the effect of light hitting a physical surface, upon which it interacts so that the pattern of its illumination is visible. So, the question is whether the light effects on that surface can "undo" and "reinforce" each other on that surface. That doesn't change the mystery about time, though. How could a photon that hits a surface well after a previous photon be capable of undoing the effect on that surface that the first photon produced? I am thinking of photographic silver halide chemical reactions or electrical responses of photoelectric sensors.

If I understand Agnosco's posted blog material as he intends, he seems to be saying that the patterns on the screen are actually created by the effects on the photons of the electron clouds associated with the material in which the slits are formed, occurring as the photons pass through the slit.

However, I don't think you can simply combine the patterns from 2 slits, say by overlaying photos of 2 single-slit, multi-photon patterns taken days apart with the same slit in 2 different positions comparable to the double slit arrangement, and thus produce the double-slit pattern. It seems like that would be the test for his hypothesis. Maybe somebody has already done that test?

Thanks for your input, Unclear Engineer.

Beyond this reply, I don’t intend to engage in further correspondence regarding this matter on this platform as the matter and style of presentation I wish to provide are unsuited to this venue.

Am I correct in seeing your response as not disputing the non-interaction of propagating photons as claimed in the linked references I attached, and envisage their interaction as only occurring in the material of the screen itself?

If this is what you see as happening, I would be very interested in any description available to you of the physical mechanism involved in such an interaction.

"So, the question is whether the light effects on that surface can "undo" and "reinforce" each other on that surface."

Discussions dealing with light interacting with matter generally fall into the error of failing to realise that a quantum discussion must dispense with the idea of 'surfaces' and consider the interaction of photons [of visible light or any other part of the electromagnetic spectrum] as interacting with the atoms of the material they encounter rather than with a surface.

A description of events must necessarily proceed on that basis, and I would be intrigued to learn of a proposed atomic level mechanism other than my own producing the results of the slit experiment.

"That doesn't change the mystery about time, though. How could a photon that hits a surface well after a previous photon be capable of undoing the effect on that surface that the first photon produced? I am thinking of photographic silver halide chemical reactions or electrical responses of photoelectric sensors."

I agree, and I like the thinking. No process leading to such an outcome appears possible to me.

"If I understand Agnosco's posted blog material as he intends, he seems to be saying that the patterns on the screen are actually created by the effects on the photons of the electron clouds associated with the material in which the slits are formed, occurring as the photons pass through the slit."

Yes. In the Ignis model, this results from a charge interaction and the processes of classical mechanics.

Please realise that my arguments proceed on the basis of a hypothesis put forward with a view to overcoming what I see as the limitations imposed by current ideas.

While it's no doubt a lot to ask of anyone to embark upon what amounts to an intensive study of unfamiliar concepts that diverge radically from previous understanding, I think only tedious and unnecessarily complex conversations can arise from correspondence entered into in the absence of a comprehensive understanding of the hypothesis I wish to have considered by appropriate people.

I don't really expect you or anyone else on this forum to devote the time and effort necessary to fully comprehend my model, and few possess an ability to really critically re-examine what they already 'know', in my opinion. However, there are problems with physics at a fundamental level, and these will not be overcome without the disciplined application of the minds of thinking individuals seriously interested in discovering how it all works.

"However, I don't think you can simply combine the patterns from 2 slits, say by overlaying photos of 2 single, slit multi-photon patterns taken days apart with the same slit in 2 different positions comparable to the double slit arrangement, and thus produce the double-slit pattern. It seems like that would be the test for his hypothesis. Maybe somebody has already done that test?"

I agree, that sounds like a nonsense and it wasn't intended to be implied by what I said. Similar patterns are accumulated on a storage screen over time by passing successive single photons through a single slit. This is well known, and to me it illustrates the scattering behaviour to be expected from the model I describe. It also denies any possibility of 'interference' between photons.

Fanciful claims about 'time travelling photons' or photons reacting with themselves travelling on possible alternate paths reveal the unscientific thinking of those desperate to defend their erroneous claims.

Anyone allowing themselves to be captivated by such magical thinking or failing to escape its clutches deserves to remain in ignorance regarding the nature of reality.

If my hypothesis is valid, those first grasping the ideas may pioneer taking them further and applying them to other previously unexplained or incorrectly understood phenomena.

I would be very pleased if you were one of those people.

Incidentally, if the hypothesis is correct it provides a clear explanation for the ‘curvature’ of light as it passes a massive body and this explanation would have appeal to those favouring descriptions of events that may be clearly visualised.

Anyone wishing to expose themselves to a perhaps challenging mental exercise is invited to seek more information from me.

Thanks again.

I intend to look at and perhaps engage with Space.com articles as opportunity and interest arise.

I recommend the following books to provide excellent background material to anyone interested in Quantum Mechanics as it is discussed today:

Quantum – Einstein, Bohr and the Great Debate About the Nature of Reality by Manjit Kumar

Lost in Math – How Beauty Leads Physics Astray by Sabine Hossenfelder

Through Two Doors At Once – The Elegant Experiment That Captures the Enigma of Our Quantum Reality by Anil Ananthaswamy

What Is Real – The Unfinished Quest For the Meaning of Quantum Physics by Adam Becker

 

[Robert Lucien Howe]

Hmmm.. The interaction of photons.. There is a rather neat explanation for a lot of the behaviour of photons including wave interaction - using FTL physics.

The basics go that speed is always a vector quantity and therefore the speed of light at 90 degrees to the motion of a photon is effectively zero. From there the argument goes that all transverse interactions involving light are FTL interactions. From there the explanation goes that FTL interactions look like wavelike behaviour and STL interactions look like particle like behaviour.
So from there -
- Refraction, reflection, and photon-photon interactions are all 'Slow' FTL behaviour.
- Emission, transmission, and absorption are STL behaviour.

Further -
- STL velocity objects have a net positive mass and a base superposition of one.
- FTL velocity objects have a net negative mass and a base superposition of two. (probably)
- Light velocity objects have a net zero mass and a base superposition of one or two. (probably)

- Gravity is explained correctly by General Relativity as a curvature in a four space. However the model restricts the size of four-spaces to the quantum scale so this becomes the scale at which general relativity operates.
- Above quantum scales space is restricted to three dimensions and time to zero dimensions. Hence time is point like above quantum scales.

- Matter (nuclear particles) can be described as quantum scale regions of space time at total & infinite curvature. This makes no sense in the current model but works with a speed of light within such objects as very close to zero.
- Energy can be described as quantum scale regions of curved space time. Since the speed of light is defined as a vector the most fundamental form of energy becomes kinetic energy.
So curved regions of space time -> photons -> kinetic energy -> particles of matter -> forces.

All together a semi-complete G-U-T but one that there is currently no way of testing definitively. So just a hypothesis.