I realize it would have to be some kind of massless boson, but of which spin? Basically what I am trying to devise is a field of hypothetical particles which can surround a nucleon or lepton like a bubble and move it, or form into a tangible 3D construct. I am just trying to figure out what the properties of such a hypothetical particle are, and as it would appear to be a massive boson, that would mean I need to find out the spin. Would it be a spin-0 scalar boson? Or something different?
Originally posted by Lestov16
Could a field of guided photons be used to levitate an object of any mass, as large as a gigagram or as small as a nucleon or electron?
Photons transfer momentum so, sure, a powerful light source could levitate an object, its the same principle that makes a solar sail work. In practical terms I suspect for anything you might care about levitating the light would be so intense as to destroy it.
Originally posted by Lestov16What about a diamagnetic effect?
Could a field of guided photons be used to levitate an object of any mass, as large as a gigagram or as small as a nucleon or electron?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diamagnetism
Perhaps it might be more effective if the target is first charged with monopoles(?). In other words, instead of looking for an "oaon" particle, the GL ring effect may involve a composite field (at the very least, green light is involved, or the constructs would not be visible).
Originally posted by Lestov16
That is a very good suggestion.Another I was thinking of is maybe it is some kind of exotic massive vector boson. That way it would have mass and be formed into a tangible object, yet still allow the construct to be visible.
Sorry, you want a visible, tangible object with mass and for this you invent an exotic particle? Visible, tangible, massive objects are very common in reality.
Visible, tangible, massive particles which can create a field around both individual hadrons and leptons, the smallest massive objects we know of? In order to interact with both hadrons and leptons, it would have to be a boson, and it would have to be massive to be tangible. That is where I get the exotic vector boson idea.
Originally posted by Lestov16
Visible, tangible, massive particles which can create a field around both individual hadrons and leptons, the smallest massive objects we know of? In order to interact with both hadrons and leptons, it would have to be a boson, and it would have to be massive to be tangible. That is where I get the exotic vector boson idea.
Ordinary atoms can capture hadrons (nuclear fusion) and leptons (electron capture).
The conundrum I personally have with high-level extrapolations is, on the one hand, you want to use what's already known as a foothold in the real world. OTOH, it is not entirely unreasonable, in this context, to extrapolate some new particle, field or science, given that, eg, a century ago no one knew about quantum mechanics.
Ie, I find the starship Enterprise "believable" in that it has familiar features (eg, antimatter power source; a definite front-back orientation; windows). But I also find the "Starman" movie rescue ship believable cuz I have almost no idea what I'm looking at, and that's "how it should be", imo, when dealing with a tech truly far advanced.
Originally posted by Mindship
given that, eg, a century ago no one knew about quantum mechanics.
Originally posted by Lestov16
How would the physics of a Green Lantern Ring work? What possible particle (real or hypothetical) would a Lantern energy construct consist of? Would it be a fermion, boson, or tachyon, or something else?
I'm not going to go into any elaborate detail, but the idea sketch I'd use would be that I'd have the ring as a projector projecting matter of a new set of rapidly decaying fermions.
Originally posted by Astner
I'm honestly not too familiar with Green Lantern's powers. I know that they can create temporary objects like walls, big fists, and shields to travel in space.I'm not going to go into any elaborate detail, but the idea sketch I'd use would be that I'd have the ring as a projector projecting matter of a new set of rapidly decaying fermions.
A more difficult question might be how creating such matter would be related in any way to the ring's user's "willpower"
I mean, if one is going to such extremes to explain how the matter/energy is formed, the question of how someone psychically controls said matter/energy is also relevant.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
That seems high. The highest I think you can justify is just under 150 years.
Dammit, Sym, he's a physicist not a historician!!!!
Though, I really think we should all give the other the benefit of the doubt, what's a century between friends. At any rate, perhaps Mindship was talking about almost no one knowing about Quantum Mechanics back then (except for the scientific elite, which was much smaller back then) and now pretty much everyone knowing about it by name at least...also teleportation.
Originally posted by Bardock42Yeah, that's what I meant. whistling
At any rate, perhaps Mindship was talking about almost no one knowing about Quantum Mechanics back then...
My point was, that prior to some point in history, the most powerful scientific theory ever devised was not even a gleam in anyone's eye (I tend to view QM formally beginning with Planck around 1900, and its "golden age" being the 1920s...)
"The phrase 'quantum mechanics' was coined (in German, "quantenmechanik"😉 by the group of physicists including Max Born, Werner Heisenberg, and Wolfgang Pauli, at the University of Göttingen in the early 1920s, and was first used in Born's 1924 paper 'Zur Quantenmechanik'."
Not that I'm particularly fond of quoting Wikipedia, but I would think with the basics, at least, it would be a reliable source.
Originally posted by Astner
Leptoquarks—from quark-lepton complimentary models—are still bosons, and a first generation leptoquarks would quickly decay into one first generation lepton and one first generation quark under normal conditions. So the answer is no.
What if they were stable and did not decay? Would they be able to "touch" both hadrons (nucleons) and leptons?