Originally posted by AstnerIs vacuum polarization the reason for the increase in quark binding energy if one tries to separate quarks?
A good example would be quarks and leptons, they don't have volume in the standard model, partially because volume at that scale is more or less meaningless but more importantly due to their vacuum polarization (a cloud of virtual particle-antiparticle pairs).
Originally posted by Astner
Particles can have mass, they just don't have volume.
And I am still a little befuddled by this "they don't have volume" claim, as gravitational singularities are the only things that don't have volume as far as I have been informed. Any citations for this claim? Not that I am disputing it or anything, just a little taken aback.
Originally posted by Astner
What the **** are you talking about? The Casimir effect occurs due to phase shifts, often referred to as vacuum energy.
Just explain it all in layman's terms to me. That way it'll be easier for the both of us.
Originally posted by TheGodKiller
IAnd I am still a little befuddled by this "they don't have volume" claim, as gravitational singularities are the only things that don't have volume as far as I have been informed. Any citations for this claim? Not that I am disputing it or anything, just a little taken aback.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Point_particle
Physicists treat particles are point objects, although I believe that they have dimensionality when treated as a wave. As far as I know there is still some debate about whether being a point particle is a physically real description or only a useful one (ie you can treat planets as point objects in celestial mechanics simply because you're describing things very far away from them, particles that are extremely tiny could reasonably be treated as point particles for the same reason even when seemingly very close).
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Point_particlePhysicists treat particles are point objects, although I believe that they have dimensionality when treated as a wave. As far as I know there is still some debate about whether being a point particle is a physically real description or only a useful one (ie you can treat planets as point objects in celestial mechanics simply because you're describing things very far away from them, particles that are extremely tiny could reasonably be treated as point particles for the same reason even when seemingly very close).
Originally posted by Lestov16
But does it move slower than light? Even though it has a mass of -1, doesn't it still count as a tardyon because it's mass is not 0 (like a luxon), or imaginary (like a tachyon)?
And negative density would contradict the standard model, look up the Friedmann metric for more detail.
Originally posted by Mindship
Is vacuum polarization the reason for the increase in quark binding energy if one tries to separate quarks?
Originally posted by TheGodKiller
It's not about them having mass or not, it's about whether they can have negative mass or not.
Originally posted by TheGodKiller
And I am still a little befuddled by this "they don't have volume" claim, as gravitational singularities are the only things that don't have volume as far as I have been informed.
As for a source, check the link Symmetric Chaos posted.
Originally posted by TheGodKiller
I presume that this wiki article about negative mass is wrong or that I am interpreting it incorrectly?
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Physicists treat particles are point objects, although I believe that they have dimensionality when treated as a wave.
Originally posted by Astner
I think you misunderstand, if you get an inverted volume it means that you've made miscalculation.And negative density would contradict the standard model, look up the Friedmann metric for more detail.
.
I understand the particle can not exist within our universes physical laws (as we currently understand them), but let's consider hypothetical that there is a universe with different physical laws which would allow the particle to exist. Would it be considered massive, due to having a non-zero rest mass, or tachyonic? Or neither.
Whether it's massive or not depends on how you define it. But it wouldn't be a tachyon.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I thought the wave described something like a probability distribution in three dimensions so that you get electron orbitals and stuff like that.
Originally posted by Lestov16
let's consider hypothetical that there is a universe with different physical laws which would allow the particle to exist
I've never understood why people ask physicists this question. If you assume the laws of physics are different you no longer get answers that reflect the real laws of physics (which is what you want to know about).
Originally posted by Astner
Note the lack of references in the article.
It's another matter entirely if you want to dismiss them as unreliable sources. But the article does provide references for various claims made within it, and that much is indisputable.
Originally posted by Mindship
And please, say it in layman's terms,
Originally posted by TheGodKiller
There are a number of citations listed at the bottom of that article. 😬It's another matter entirely if you want to dismiss them as unreliable sources. But the article does provide references for various claims made within it, and that much is indisputable.
As pointed out, negative density would ruin the Friedmann metric which plays a pivotal role in the standard model.
Originally posted by Astner
As pointed out, negative density would ruin the Friedmann metric which plays a pivotal role in the standard model.
Obviously the quantum aether fluctuations mean that negative mass takes up negative space and thus has positive density. You haven't studied the decanic truths.