[Profpat]

And even more regarding the Borrorean Rings at the atomic level:

In this state, any two of the atoms repel each other when close together, “but when you put three of them together, it turns out that they attract and form a new state,” said the University of Chicago’s Cheng Chin.
In the laboratory of Rudolf Grimm at the University of Innsbruck in Austria, they reported, they observed the state in a vacuum chamber at a frigid minus 459.6 degrees Fahrenheit.
That’s equivalent to a billionth of a degree above “absolute zero,” the coldest temperature that can exist.
The new state behaves like a Borromean ring, a symbol of three interlocking circles significant in Medieval Italy, the researchers explained. The Borromean concept is also important in some other aspects of physics, chemistry and mathematics.

Could it be that the Borrorean Rings are the foundation of the proton as my An Idea suggest?

[dipayankar]

I agree to your point Prof, but can you really prove that one dimension exists?

Originally Posted by Profpat Hi Dipayankar; I guess that is the question. A light wave is a 2 dimensional transverse wave which has 3d characteristics. But what makes up that wave, a point particle or a string. You have a problem with a point particle making up a 2 dimensional transverse wave but a one dimensional particle demands it. Also I have a problem with point particle per se, in that if they are a point particle that would imply that they are dimensionless, which to me indicates that they do not exist, When an electron splits ( another "point particle" ) it can split into another electron and photon, I don't know how a dimensionless point particle can split since there are no dimensions to split. However if electrons are strings it's easy to visualize a string breaking in two forming two particles. The jury is still out on this one Dipayankar, but my money is on the one dimensional strings. Best, Pat

[Profpat]

Good question Dipayankar and I'm still looking, I believe both point particles and strings are still theoretical. I did find this in the meantime however.

Strings vs. Point Particles

The main distinction between strings and point particles is the fact that strings have spatial extent, whereas point particles are literally zero-dimensional. It had previously been supposed by physicists formulating quantum mechanics that the elementary particles were points. However, string theory states that the elementary particles are not points but instead are tiny undulating strings. According to the uncertainty principle, the ability of a particle to "probe" an area depends on its quantum wavelength, or the amount of uncertainty in its position - in other words, a particle's sensitivity becomes "blurred" by quantum jitters. As you will see, this proves to be important in the unification of quantum mechanics and string theory.

Best,

Pat

[PoPpAScience]

Just had a thought Profat, what if the 'point Particle', is the measuring of the Zero point of a Vortex and the measurement of the undulating event horizon of the Vortex is a string.

[dipayankar]

Good effort to explain one and point dimensions. However the post from PoPaPop is also intersting. He has tried to explain strings in terms of vortex theory.

Originally Posted by Profpat Good question Dipayankar and I'm still looking, I believe both point particles and strings are still theoretical. I did find this in the meantime however. Strings vs. Point Particles The main distinction between strings and point particles is the fact that strings have spatial extent, whereas point particles are literally zero-dimensional. It had previously been supposed by physicists formulating quantum mechanics that the elementary particles were points. However, string theory states that the elementary particles are not points but instead are tiny undulating strings. According to the uncertainty principle, the ability of a particle to "probe" an area depends on its quantum wavelength, or the amount of uncertainty in its position - in other words, a particle's sensitivity becomes "blurred" by quantum jitters. As you will see, this proves to be important in the unification of quantum mechanics and string theory. Best, Pat

[Profpat]

I agree Allen does have a good "point". I have entertained the thought that a string is a highly enenergetic very,very small vortex.

Every massive entity has a center point of gravity, but this is a conceptual point. I can't imagine an electron or photon itself being a dimensionless point particle and existing in our reality. It's OK for physicist to discuss it as a point particle conceptually, but not really. There I believe for it to actually exist it has to have at least ONE dimension.

More on this subject later.

Best to all,

Pat

[Profpat]

Point particle

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Jump to: navigation, search
A point particle (or point-like, often spelt pointlike) is an idealized object heavily used in physics. Its defining feature is that it lacks spatial extension: being zero-dimensional, it does not take up space. A point particle is an appropriate representation of any object whose size, shape, and structure is irrelevant in a given context. For example, from far away an object of any shape will look and behave as a point-like object.

This is what I thought. Physicists don't really believe the electron, photon and neutrino are really 0 dimensions, it just a representation they use.

Best,

Pat

P.S. Back to our one dimensional entities "strings" which indeed may be real.

[Profpat]

Through mathematical equations it became obvious that the way we had previously thought of particles as "points" or "little balls" of energy was inaccurate. These tiny bits of matter actually behaved more like wiggling, vibrating strings. Strings are so small that Brian Greene, a physicist and proponent, explains that if a single atom were the size of our solar system, a string would only be the size of a tree. Yet strings make up all matter from the quantum level up.

[Felix Schrodinger]

Originally Posted by Profpat Through mathematical equations it became obvious that the way we had previously thought of particles as "points" or "little balls" of energy was inaccurate. These tiny bits of matter actually behaved more like wiggling, vibrating strings. Strings are so small that Brian Greene, a physicist and proponent, explains that if a single atom were the size of our solar system, a string would only be the size of a tree. Yet strings make up all matter from the quantum level up.

Hi Profpat and Dippy

Yes, the concept of a point particle is purely mathematical and has no place in the real word. This is why physics has branched off into string theory as a means to get rid of the infinites that plagued the previous model.

As far as the current discussion is concerned, I feel that the much of the problem is semantic - use of the word 'particle' to fit too many different roles. In my definition a particle is a defined entity which has been observed or postulated to exist in the real world if only momentarily. This covers all of those listed in the standard model. In my world these particles consist of string in various combinations, which explains their varied properties. Thus string itself is not a particle - just the constituent stuff that goes to make up matter and it exists in all three spatial dimensions.

regards
Felix

[dipayankar]

Thats what I am breaking my tiny brains on. What substance would a string be made of? Could that substance be broken down into still more fundamental substances???

Originally Posted by Felix Schrodinger Hi Profpat and Dippy Yes, the concept of a point particle is purely mathematical and has no place in the real word. This is why physics has branched off into string theory as a means to get rid of the infinites that plagued the previous model. As far as the current discussion is concerned, I feel that the much of the problem is semantic - use of the word 'particle' to fit too many different roles. In my definition a particle is a defined entity which has been observed or postulated to exist in the real world if only momentarily. This covers all of those listed in the standard model. In my world these particles consist of string in various combinations, which explains their varied properties. Thus string itself is not a particle - just the constituent stuff that goes to make up matter and it exists in all three spatial dimensions. regards Felix