What if there is only one type of particle but its physical properties change depending on which field it is interacting with?

[jlinder87]

First, let me say that this is literally a question. I DO NOT, FOR A MOMENT, THINK THAT I, WITHOUT ANY FORMAL TRAINING, HAVE STUMBLED ONTO SOME GROUNDBREAKING PHYSICS. I just found the idea compelling and wanted to share it to see if any one else also found it interesting as a thought experiment.

Given the foregoing, please do not respond by telling me that this idea does not fit into the current model of particle physics. I know this idea flies in the face of our current model of physics. It is just a thought. And I also know that string theory posits something similar, albeit also fundamentally different with fundamentally different implications. Here, a single type of particle mediates all the forces, depending on what field the particle is interacting with--if it interacts with the electromagnetic field, it would mediate that force, and so on. While I am not certain of all the implications, I know that just the foregoing could go a long way toward unifying all the forces.

Again, this is a very out there idea and I am not putting it out there as an answer. I phrased it as a question because that is all it is. I have no belief that it is true. I only believe that it is an interesting thought experiment to me and wanted to see if any one else found it to be so, as well.

 

[(Q)]

Boson or Fermion?

 

[jlinder87]

Thanks for the response! And in my mind, I was thinking both. The idea appealed to me because of its simplicity, so I want to have it apply in all cases, as a starting point. Of course, since this is just a thought, I would say that whatever is most compelling to you is also a good answer.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

If frog had wings they wouldn't bump their butts so often. What-iffing should be coherent.

 

[jlinder87]

If frog had wings they wouldn't bump their butts so often. What-iffing should be coherent

A fair point. In your view, what would make the idea more coherent? I don't want to be posting inane things on here, so I would appreciate the guidance.

 

[exchemist]

A fair point. In your view, what would make the idea more coherent? I don't want to be posting inane things on here, so I would appreciate the guidance.

It seems to me the issue is that, as it stands, this is not really a well enough defined idea to comment on very usefully.

The concept of there only being one type of particle which manifests itself as if it is many, due to interaction with "fields" of some kind, is so far from modern physics that one has to assume everything is being thrown out and you are starting from the beginning, on an entirely different basis. That being so, a lot of further explanation of the idea is going to be needed.

It might be useful to llustrate how it could work by means of an example. For instance, how could a single particle manifest itself as an electron by interaction with one type of field and as a proton (or one of its constituent quarks, perhaps?) by interaction with a different one?

Crucially, given that the electron and the proton (or quark) are so different in their properties, in what sense would there then be a single particle, responsible for both? And what would the nature of these "fields" be, and their interaction with the particle?

 

[DaveC426913]

I know that just the foregoing could go a long way toward unifying all the forces.

The shortcoming of this idea is that it simply kicks the can farther down the road.

In the standard model, there are 17 fundamental particles, each with unique properties that need to be explained.
In your model there is one particle but now you have to explain why it behaves seventeen different ways.

Not to mention that
- it has to also explain how the same particle can change its fixed properties such as mass and charge. (A particle with a different mass and charge almost sounds like a different particle...)
- we don't see particles switching back and forth depending on what field they're interacting with. A proton has not been observed changing into an electron - reversing its charge and losing 95% if its mass.

 

[parmalee]

It seems to me the issue is that, as it stands, this is not really a well enough defined idea to comment on very usefully.

The concept of there only being one type of particle which manifests itself as if it is many, due to interaction with "fields" of some kind, is so far from modern physics that one has to assume everything is being thrown out and you are starting from the beginning, on an entirely different basis. That being so, a lot of further explanation of the idea is going to be needed.

It might be useful to llustrate how it could work by means of an example. For instance, how could a single particle manifest itself as an electron by interaction with one type of field and as a proton (or one of its constituent quarks, perhaps?) by interaction with a different one?

Crucially, given that the electron and the proton (or quark) are so different in their properties, in what sense would there then be a single particle, responsible for both? And what would the nature of these "fields" be, and their interaction with the particle?

It strikes me more as a matter of philosophical enquiry, with both epistemological and ontological implications, than as a matter for physics.

 

[jlinder87]

It seems to me the issue is that, as it stands, this is not really a well enough defined idea to comment on very usefully.

The concept of there only being one type of particle which manifests itself as if it is many, due to interaction with "fields" of some kind, is so far from modern physics that one has to assume everything is being thrown out and you are starting from the beginning, on an entirely different basis. That being so, a lot of further explanation of the idea is going to be needed.

It might be useful to llustrate how it could work by means of an example. For instance, how could a single particle manifest itself as an electron by interaction with one type of field and as a proton (or one of its constituent quarks, perhaps?) by interaction with a different one?

Crucially, given that the electron and the proton (or quark) are so different in their properties, in what sense would there then be a single particle, responsible for both? And what would the nature of these "fields" be, and their interaction with the particle?

Thank you for that guidance! I really appreciate it. So, my thinking is that fields in current quantum field theory are already thought to carry "information" that then impacts particles that interact with the field. For instance, the Higgs field has information that causes particles that interact with it to have mass. This is already a huge shift for any particle that interact with the Higgs field. Going from no mass to mass is a big difference. In the framework of my idea, fields would carry information that would similarly cause particles that interact with them to display different physical properties. Since mass is a physical property, the current QFT already posits that fields do this. My theory just alters the nature of the information the fields contain.

 

[jlinder87]

The shortcoming of this idea is that it simply kicks the can farther down the road.

In the standard model, there are 17 fundamental particles, each with unique properties that need to be explained.
In your model there is one particle but now you have to explain why it behaves seventeen different ways.

Not to mention that
- it has to also explain how the same particle can change its fixed properties such as mass and charge. (A particle with a different mass and charge almost sounds like a different particle...)
- we don't see particles switching back and forth depending on what field they're interacting with. A proton has not been observed changing into an electron - reversing its charge and losing 95% if its mass.

Thank you for the response! Copying and pasting from another reply I made: "So, my thinking is that fields in current quantum field theory are already thought to carry "information" that then impacts particles that interact with the field. For instance, the Higgs field has information that causes particles that interact with it to have mass. This is already a huge shift for any particle that interact with the Higgs field. Going from no mass to mass is a big difference. In the framework of my idea, fields would carry information that would similarly cause particles that interact with them to display different physical properties. Since mass is a physical property, the current QFT already posits that fields do this. My theory just alters the nature of the information the fields contain."

To add to the forgoing, in response to why we don't see particles switching back and forth, my idea does fit into the current observations, in that when particles interact with different fields, their physical properties do change, often drastically. All my idea does is supply a different reason for this to happen. I think there would be instances when my idea would result in measurably different interactions that could be observed, but as to when those would occur, I have not gotten there yet. As to why, within the context of my idea, photons wouldn't then switch into electrons all the time, I would say that fields could potentially impose stable configurations on particles that can only be altered at extremely high energies or under very specific conditions.

 

[jlinder87]

It strikes me more as a matter of philosophical enquiry, with both epistemological and ontological implications, than as a matter for physics.

I do think the idea has roots in philosophy. I also think it is a matter for physics, but that is just my opinion and yours is equally valid.

 

[exchemist]

Thank you for that guidance! I really appreciate it. So, my thinking is that fields in current quantum field theory are already thought to carry "information" that then impacts particles that interact with the field. For instance, the Higgs field has information that causes particles that interact with it to have mass. This is already a huge shift for any particle that interact with the Higgs field. Going from no mass to mass is a big difference. In the framework of my idea, fields would carry information that would similarly cause particles that interact with them to display different physical properties. Since mass is a physical property, the current QFT already posits that fields do this. My theory just alters the nature of the information the fields contain.

I see. I'm afraid that, as a chemist, I never studied QFT, so I can't help much with whether or not properties such as charge or spin can arise via interaction with a field, in the way that mass is said to do.

 

[jlinder87]

I see. I'm afraid that, as a chemist, I never studied QFT, so I can't help much with whether or not properties such as charge or spin can arise via interaction with a field, in the way that mass is said to do.

I do not believe that my idea directly conflicts with current experimental observations. That of course has nothing whatsoever to do with whether my idea is correct. It just means that it is possible. At the same time, I am very much trying to have my idea refuted, because that is how I deepen my understanding.

 

[jlinder87]

No need to double post.

Hello, again! I posted this in the AlternativeTheories forum as well because I was not sure which one it fit best into. Apologies if that is not normal procedure.

 

[exchemist]

I do not believe that my idea directly conflicts with current experimental observations. That of course has nothing whatsoever to do with whether my idea is correct. It just means that it is possible. At the same time, I am very much trying to have my idea refuted, because that is how I deepen my understanding.

The problem may be rather than your idea might have no observational consequences at all. If it doesn't predict something one should expect to observe, then it would not really be a scientific theory in any useful sense.

But really you need to talk to someone who knows his or her way round QFT, I think. That person is not me.

 

[jlinder87]

The problem may be rather than your idea might have no observational consequences at all. If it doesn't predict something one should expect to observe, then it would not really be a scientific theory in any useful sense.

But really you need to talk to someone who knows his or her way round QFT, I think. That person is not me.

Based on some preliminary research, there are likely observations that could be made that would indicate whether this idea is possible. However, just as you said, I would need someone who knows their way around QFT to determine whether that is true or not. That is mainly why I am posting the idea to places like this one. I am looking for someone who has more knowledge than me who can either refute the idea or help to brainstorm ways to move it forward.

 

[exchemist]

Based on some preliminary research, there are likely observations that could be made that would indicate whether this idea is possible. However, just as you said, I would need someone who knows their way around QFT to determine whether that is true or not. That is mainly why I am posting the idea to places like this one. I am looking for someone who has more knowledge than me who can either refute the idea or help to brainstorm ways to move it forward.

One issue I think you will need to address is why your single particle interacts with these fields in one way in one set of circumstances, appearing as an electron, and on another occasion as a quark or proton. Presumably these fields permeate space so why would one pick one set while another picks a different set?

 

[jlinder87]

One issue I think you will need to address is why your single particle interacts with these fields in one way in one set of circumstances, appearing as an electron, and on another occasion as a quark or proton. Presumably these fields permeate space so why would one pick one set while another picks a different set?

It would have to be that the specific nature of the interaction with the field or fields is what determines the resultant physical properties. So, if a particle intreracted with a field under one set of conditions, that particle would have different physical properties than a particle that interacted with the field under a different set of conditions.

 

[James R]

jlinder87:

I know this idea flies in the face of our current model of physics. It is just a thought. And I also know that string theory posits something similar, albeit also fundamentally different with fundamentally different implications.

I don't know very much about string theory. However, my understanding of it is that posits that different kinds of fundamental particles correspond to different modes of vibrations of the 'strings', which are the fundamental elements in the theory. String theory handles the fields by introducing extra dimensions of space. The most popular string theories these days have 10 dimensions.

Here, a single type of particle mediates all the forces, depending on what field the particle is interacting with--if it interacts with the electromagnetic field, it would mediate that force, and so on.

I would guess that this is somewhat different to string theory. I don't know for sure, but I'm guessing that in string theory the strings can all have certain values of properties like electric charge, colour charge, lepton number and so on, but strings that have, say, an electric charge of zero, will not be affected by the electromagnetic force, and similarly for other properties.

I suppose you might be able to flesh out your idea in a similar way, theoretically.

While I am not certain of all the implications, I know that just the foregoing could go a long way toward unifying all the forces.

As I said, string theory achieves that unification by positing the existence of extra dimensions. I'm not sure what mechanism you have in mind for your idea.

I only believe that it is an interesting thought experiment to me and wanted to see if any one else found it to be so, as well.

To take your idea any further, as others have suggested already, you will probably need to study up on quantum field theories. Then, I would suggest that you learn about string theory. After all, you don't want to have to reinvent the wheel, if something very similar to your idea is already out there.

It is not at all clear to me, from what you have said so far, how you intend to turn your idea into a quantitative theory that can be tested against experimental evidence. That's what you will need to do if you want to convince the scientific community that your idea is useful.

Depending on how much physics you already know, you have either a fair amount of study ahead of you (several years) or a lot of study ahead of you (perhaps 6 to 8 years or longer, if you include the work on developing your idea into a workable theory, assuming that's possible.)

 

[jlinder87]

jlinder87:

I don't know very much about string theory. However, my understanding of it is that posits that different kinds of fundamental particles correspond to different modes of vibrations of the 'strings', which are the fundamental elements in the theory. String theory handles the fields by introducing extra dimensions of space. The most popular string theories these days have 10 dimensions.

I would guess that this is somewhat different to string theory. I don't know for sure, but I'm guessing that in string theory the strings can all have certain values of properties like electric charge, colour charge, lepton number and so on, but strings that have, say, an electric charge of zero, will not be affected by the electromagnetic force, and similarly for other properties.

I suppose you might be able to flesh out your idea in a similar way, theoretically.


As I said, string theory achieves that unification by positing the existence of extra dimensions. I'm not sure what mechanism you have in mind for your idea.

To take your idea any further, as others have suggested already, you will probably need to study up on quantum field theories. Then, I would suggest that you learn about string theory. After all, you don't want to have to reinvent the wheel, if something very similar to your idea is already out there.

It is not at all clear to me, from what you have said so far, how you intend to turn your idea into a quantitative theory that can be tested against experimental evidence. That's what you will need to do if you want to convince the scientific community that your idea is useful.

Depending on how much physics you already know, you have either a fair amount of study ahead of you (several years) or a lot of study ahead of you (perhaps 6 to 8 years or longer, if you include the work on developing your idea into a workable theory, assuming that's possible.)

Thank you for the response! That is all helpful and appreciated.