Particle Density

G

gluon

Banned
Banned
I was wondering, is the traditional equation $$\rho =\frac{M}{v}$$ where $$\rho$$ is density and $$v$$ is volume used in calculating the mass of a atom?

I would thought if we went smaller to the size of an electron, that seems to be pointlike, would have a ''volume'' as such. In fact, any attempt to measure a structure to the electron has failed.

So how do we accurately measure particle densities on the levels of atoms and electrons?
 
This is a very interesting question; I don't know the answer; the problem with all solutions that I have seen is that of volume. How do we know the volume.
 
Exactly, if it is pointlike, how can it have a measurable volume, and even a calculatable density?
 
Many years ago I abandoned the traditional view of the electron. This after much digging into the MIT attempts to measure it. They measured nothing, then concluded that the electron must be smaller than the limits of their measuring device. To me it would be Ok to conclude that and keep it to oneself; but the researchers reported to the world that the electron's size was smaller than the measuring limits of their device.
 
gluon said:
I was wondering, is the traditional equation $$\rho =\frac{M}{v}$$ where $$\rho$$ is density and $$v$$ is volume used in calculating the mass of a atom?

I would thought if we went smaller to the size of an electron, that seems to be pointlike, would have a ''volume'' as such. In fact, any attempt to measure a structure to the electron has failed.

So how do we accurately measure particle densities on the levels of atoms and electrons?
Click to expand...
In line with what Vern said, this is a subject for which science has no proved theory. The scientific method goes to what is called protoscience to embrace discussion on the infinitesimal volumes of space that are referred to as "point like".

It is reasonable to discuss volumes in smaller and smaller increments. There is a limit that is approached as volume decreases. The limit is zero volume which would be an infinitely small volume.

There are limits imposed by technology on what degree of volume we can observe. It is safe to expect that the smallest volume that we can observe is not the smallest possible volume in nature.

To answer your question, we can't accurately measure volume at the electron level, but there is no reason to believe that the volume of an electron is zero.
 
There must be something wrong then with the physical notion of particle volume. If it has zero-volume existing in zero-dimensions, then i fail to see how there would be any mass in the world. On a cosmological scale, all particles must have some level of volume, no matter how small if it have atleast a miniscule of mass.
 
The reason why i am asking, is because i have a totally unrelated question. I am not a follower of the Higgs Mechanism, and i was speculating on the mass of particles. Traditionally, we have $$M_i=\frac{F}{a}$$, which concludes that a systems mass is proportional to the force. Indeed, one could even say that the force over acceleration gives you the property of mass.

My question would have been, why do we not accept that at the fundamental level, (and taking into consideration that a single particle is never at rest, perhaps the intrinsic force applied on particles keeping them from absolute rest or true rest, is what generates a spark of matter?
 
Last edited:
I found this which might be inetersting?

How experimentalists calculate the mass of a new particle
How experimentalists calculate the mass of a new particle? (Examples using Excel) ... c) Calculate the mass of the neutral particle that decays in 5 and 6 ...teachers.web.cern.ch/teachers/archiv/HST2002/Bubblech/.../index.htm - Cached
 
Prisma Satellites - A Microshutter measures particle mass
... revolutionary micromechanics in order to measure particle mass in space. ... well as the energy of the particle it is relatively easy to calculate its mass. ...www.prismasatellites.se/?id=13703 - Cached
 
gluon said:
The reason why i am asking, is because i have a totally unrelated question. I am not a follower of the Higgs Mechanism, and i was speculating on the mass of particles. Traditionally, we have $$M_i=\frac{F}{a}$$, which concludes that a systems mass is proportional to the force. Indeed, one could even say that the force over acceleration gives you the property of mass.

My question would have been, why do we not accept that at the fundamental level, (and taking into consideration that a single particle is never at rest, perhaps the intrinsic force applied on particles keeping them from absolute rest or true rest, is what generates a spark of matter?
Click to expand...

I've just found out that i might be right. The electron at rest is said to be massless, because it has a spin. If it is not a physical spin, then there is a problem with the density equation, as i deducted, if it has no volume, then it can't have a measurable density. This then brings around the problem and hypithetical concept of rest mass. If spin is a physical spin, then it must mean that no particle is ever at rest, and then we could assume the inherent drive of $$\frac{F}{a}$$ is the creation of its mass $$M_i$$ - and photons would seem to have no mass, so maybe there is a flaw in the understanding of rest mass when used to describe fermions and bosons in relativity theory. But maybe the photon does have a mass which is said to be around $$10^{-51}$$kg, and rest energy concept is not really needed.
 
I like better to view the electromagnetic diameter of particles. We can know this because we can know the wave length of the energy equivalence of the particle. Thinking of an electron this way makes it the largest of the elementary particles.
 
I did it one time like this for a hypothetical speculation of the electromagnetic diameter of particles. I don't know why I went to such lengths; it would have been much easier just to say that diameter equals wavelength divided by PI.

The equation for the size of the shells and particles was derived from Einstein's E = mc2 and Planck's E = hv, where E was energy in Joules (ergs), m was mass in Kilograms (grams) and c was the speed of light in meters (centimeters) per second. Planck's equation E = hv allowed hv to replace Einstein's E to get:

hv = mc^2

Frequency, v, is equal to the speed of light, c, divided by wavelength w, so the v in the above equation can be replaced by c/w to obtain:

hc/w = mc^2

Wavelength, w, would represent the circumference of the photon loop in the hypothesis, and circumference is pi times diameter, so w can be replaced by pi times d to obtain:

hc/(pi x d) = mc^2

Divide both sides by hc to obtain:

1/(pi x d) = mc^2/hc

Invert both sides to obtain:

pi x d = hc/mc^2

Divide both sides by pi to obtain:

d = hc/(pi x mc^2)

Simplify to obtain:

d = h/(pi x mc)

Stated simply, the result of all this was that shell diameter was equal to Planck's constant divided by the product of pi, shell mass, and the speed of light.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
It seems that we could use equations to derive an average density, and even a changing density. I quickly assume the following equations:

$$\rho(r)=M(|\psi r^{\rightarrow|^2})$$ which is an equation i created to address the density being related to the wave function. Indeed, one could say then:

$$M=\int_{V} \rho|r^{\rightarrow}| dv$$

so then one could assume:

$$\int_{t_0}^{t_1} \rho=\frac{\Delta d}{\Delta t}$$

But even with these equations, one still cannot determine the mass of a pointlike particle, because they are in respect of volume.
 
Last edited:
gluon said:
It seems that we could use equations to derive an average density, and even a changing density. I quickly assume the following equations:
Click to expand...

Why would you want to know that? Are you saying that you would then use the density get at something else.
 
gluon said:
I was wondering, is the traditional equation $$\rho =\frac{M}{v}$$ where $$\rho$$ is density and $$v$$ is volume used in calculating the mass of a atom?
Click to expand...

No, it's not.

The "volume" of an atom is ill-defined.
 
Well yes, i was going to use it to measure the drag of a mass-energy particle with their current energy density and mass density (over time) which would give us the density of the system even over a 3x3 matrix energy tensor, so that:

$$\Delta \rho^{\Pi} - \Delta \Lambda_{\Pi}=-F_{\Lambda d}$$

So that the difference between the total energy density of the system minus the density of a slice of the energy in a given space $$\Lambda_{\Pi}$$ would give the average drag of a particle with momentum through the vacuum. Obviously however, to calculate this equation, we would need additional information.
 
BenTheMan said:
No, it's not.

The "volume" of an atom is ill-defined.
Click to expand...


I know, but we can make approximations from using the radii of atoms. I never said this was exact, if you read through the discussions i was talking about, or linking the possible methods of calculating densities.
 
gluon said:
Ben, why did you move this...

Where is the psuedoscience?
Click to expand...

It's not your fault this time.

Vern said:
Many years ago I abandoned the traditional view of the electron. This after much digging into the MIT attempts to measure it. They measured nothing, then concluded that the electron must be smaller than the limits of their measuring device. To me it would be Ok to conclude that and keep it to oneself; but the researchers reported to the world that the electron's size was smaller than the measuring limits of their device.
Click to expand...

quantum_wave said:
In line with what Vern said, this is a subject for which science has no proved theory. The scientific method goes to what is called protoscience to embrace discussion on the infinitesimal volumes of space that are referred to as "point like".

It is reasonable to discuss volumes in smaller and smaller increments. There is a limit that is approached as volume decreases. The limit is zero volume which would be an infinitely small volume.

There are limits imposed by technology on what degree of volume we can observe. It is safe to expect that the smallest volume that we can observe is not the smallest possible volume in nature.

To answer your question, we can't accurately measure volume at the electron level, but there is no reason to believe that the volume of an electron is zero.
Click to expand...

Either way, you should have your answer by now.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top