Re: Sub-atomic particle structures


"PD" <pdraper@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1112209695.159267.208560@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Ranando King wrote:
<snipped>
> > The reason I asked this is possibly a little too simplistic in
> thinking, but
> > it's common knowledge that causing a structured object to resonate
> with too
> > high an amplitude will cause the structure to break down. Could it
> not be
> > possible to simply "shatter" a proton instead of smashing it against
> another
> > one? If this is possible, then couldn't we be more certain about the
> > structure of the proton by shattering than by smashing? It seems
> probable
> > that smashing protons together will cause other temporary particles
> to
> > appear that have little or nothing to do with the original particles.
> Those
> > temporary particles would merely be the unstable result of
> concentrating a
> > high amount of energy (both kinetic and mass) into a small area in a
> poorly
> > structured fashion. So is it even possible to "shatter" a proton with
> > resonance?
> >
> > R.
>
> Several comments:
> 1. For a macroscopic object, one can pump energy into it continuously
> (usually) to reach the breaking point. One does not have the luxury of
> holding onto a proton while pumping energy into it indefinitely.

Well.... We don't need to "hold" the proton per se. Just keep it relatively
fixed within a general region. This isn't so hard to do. If you could
somehow create a spherical shell with a strong net-positive charge, any
proton inside the shell will tend to stay put. So as long as the energy is
"pumped in" from opposing directions simultaneously, the proton will tend to
remain relatively stationary.

> 2. Indeed, nuclear physics does this quite often in nuclear collisions
> -- that is, the collision does not smash a nucleus but it does generate
> a highly excited, wobbling, deformed state which eventually
> disintegrates. Study of the excited state is as illuminating as the
> breakdown.

Nuclear physics is a bit of a step from particle physics. The goal is to
find with impunity, the structure of a proton, assuming it has one. This
cannot be achieved if the proton is collided with another object since the
resulting temporary merger of the 2 particle's energy states will likely
cause the creation of superfluous temporary particles.

> 3. One could argue that exactly the same thing is done in proton-proton
> or proton-antiproton collisions. We generate highly excited states
> which then decay. So, yes, in this sense it is possible to shatter a
> proton with resonance, but of course not by any experimental method
> that is fundamentally different than what we do now.

Collisions are fundamentally different than the effect I would like to
achieve. I wish to "disassemble" a proton without introducing another
massive particle as a catalyst.

> 4. In p-p or p-pbar collisions, it's not *always* possible to tell
> which of the emerging particles are associated with the original
> proton's quarks, but sometimes it is, and we can trigger for that.
> Moreover, in the other cases, what is done is to use what is known
> about QCD to simulate *all* the particles that come out of the
> collision, including the temporary ones that get pulled from the
> vacuum. (Google "Lund model" or "PYTHIA model") The analysis of the
> agreement with experiment is statistical, but that's (largely)
> irrelevant.

If a proton can be "shaken apart" then there wouldn't be any such confusion
regarding which particles came from what source. There should only be a
small blast of energy and the remaining sub particles.

> 5. Believe me, if there were a way to examine a proton's structure for
> 1/50th of the cost of a current experiment and 1/10th the time between
> experimental concept and publishable results, the funding agencies
> would be all over it, and the bright physicists would be heroes. No one
> really wants to enslave themselves to a single experiment for 10-15
> years unless they have to.

I don't know about the time constraints of such an experiment, but I would
still like to see if it is at least possible.


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Sub-atomic particle structures
    ... >>> other than dumping in loads of kinetic energy? ... >>> structure also have a resonance frequency. ... > possible to simply "shatter" a proton instead of smashing it against ... > appear that have little or nothing to do with the original particles. ...
    (sci.physics.particle)
  • Re: Spinning Ring Model of the Atom
    ... >> be composed of a proton and electron. ... compound of other particles. ... a "neutron" is a paired electron ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: diameter of proton, neutron wrt electron
    ... > compound of other particles. ... These are the electron, proton, ... quark structure of the neutron etc. etc. etc. ad nausaeum. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: diameter of proton, neutron wrt electron
    ... Basically they are saying that only electron, proton, ... >> compound of other particles. ... >> quarks the new elementary particles instead of neutrons and ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: diameter of proton, neutron wrt electron
    ... compound of other particles. ... These are the electron, proton, ... So, quarks were invented and ...
    (sci.physics)