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

[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.)

Also, how's Zaphod doing these days?

 

[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.)

Ok, so, to respond substantively (hopefully) to your post:

First, regarding string theory. My idea is different in that it goes for simplicity (which has often proved to be the way to go, though this of course does not mean my idea is anywhere near the truth). String theory is extremely convoluted, what with all the extra dimensions, etc. That complexity is one of the main reasons some physicists are certain string theory cannot be the final answer. My idea removes another complication inherent in string theory and the current model of particle physics--what physicists refer to as the "particle zoo," i.e., the number of particles that are in the current model. Further reducing complications, my idea also, of course, removes the need for the entirely theoretical object, the string.

Second, as to experimental verification, my idea might have a better shot than string theory, which isn't saying much. String theory is notoriously untestable (as of now). There could be mathematical ways to test my idea because any mathematical framework would have to entail novel predictions about how particles behave when interacting with fields. Unfortunately, I do not, and probably never will, have the mathematical wherewithal to do this, myself.

Third, the mechanism for the unification of forces would stem from the fact that there wouldn't be different particles that mediate different forces, but rather one type of particle that mediates all forces dependent upon the nature of that particle's interaction with a field or fields. A particle coupling one way with one field could mediate the electromagnetic force, but if that same particle interacted with that field in a different way, it could mediate a different force. The interaction with the field would determine this. Fields impacting the properties of particles is a part of established theory, e.g., in the mechanism of the Higgs field.

I hope the foregoing makes even a little sense, as I would consider that a big win. Thanks for reading!

 

[DaveC426913]

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,

It's not the strings themselves that have properties, it is that the strings vibrations extend in different dimensions (occupying shapes called Calabi-Yau manifolds). The particular way the strings vibrate in these spaces manifest as various properties such as charge and mass.

 

[jlinder87]

It's not the strings themselves that have properties, it is that the strings vibrations extend in different dimensions (occupying shapes called Calabi-Yau manifolds). The particular way the strings vibrate in these spaces manifest as various properties such as charge and mass.

While I have no opinion about whether my idea is right (I just know it's compelling to me), I do know that string theory is in the same boat, relatively speaking. If a physicist said to me that they were 80% certain that string theory is correct, I would question that person's biases. Hell, over 50% would be an extremely bold stance. In order to make string theory work, they had to invent a whole bunch of new, as yes untestable, physical phenomena. I would argue that my idea, at least on a purely conceptual level, doesn't leave any more to the imagination than string theory does.

 

[James R]

Also, how's Zaphod doing these days?

Not getting as much attention as he used to. It's nice to come across somebody else who understands the reference.

First, regarding string theory. My idea is different in that it goes for simplicity (which has often proved to be the way to go, though this of course does not mean my idea is anywhere near the truth). String theory is extremely convoluted, what with all the extra dimensions, etc. That complexity is one of the main reasons some physicists are certain string theory cannot be the final answer.

The complexity is there for a reason, though. It isn't just complexity for complexity's sake.

Any Theory of Everything has to be able to reproduce all the confirmed results from existing physics, as well as unifying all the fundamental interactions and such.

My idea removes another complication inherent in string theory and the current model of particle physics--what physicists refer to as the "particle zoo," i.e., the number of particles that are in the current model.

String theory reduces the particle zoo to one particle, in effect. Everything is made of strings. That particular simplification comes at a cost, however.

Further reducing complications, my idea also, of course, removes the need for the entirely theoretical object, the string.

But you're just postulating a different, entirely theoretical object. Are you not?

Second, as to experimental verification, my idea might have a better shot than string theory, which isn't saying much.

There's no way to know, in the absence of any worked-out details or predictions from your idea.

String theory is notoriously untestable (as of now).

Yes. I agree that's a problem.

There could be mathematical ways to test my idea because any mathematical framework would have to entail novel predictions about how particles behave when interacting with fields. Unfortunately, I do not, and probably never will, have the mathematical wherewithal to do this, myself.

With respect, my impression is that you're underestimating the complexity of the problem you're trying to solve.

Third, the mechanism for the unification of forces would stem from the fact that there wouldn't be different particles that mediate different forces, but rather one type of particle that mediates all forces dependent upon the nature of that particle's interaction with a field or fields.

The devil is in the detail, though. How would your particle mediate all the forces? How would it decide to be a massless spin 1 particle when acting like a photon, yet be a massive spin 1/2 particle when acting like an electron? How would it decide when to 'feel' the strong nuclear force and when not to? etc.

A particle coupling one way with one field could mediate the electromagnetic force, but if that same particle interacted with that field in a different way, it could mediate a different force. The interaction with the field would determine this.

How?

Fields impacting the properties of particles is a part of established theory, e.g., in the mechanism of the Higgs field.

The mechanism of particle interactions with the Higgs field has been fleshed out in mathematical detail, though. The Higgs mechanism also predicted the existence of a new particle, which was eventually found experimentally.

I hope the foregoing makes even a little sense, as I would consider that a big win. Thanks for reading!

It makes sense, as far as it goes. But, again with respect, it doesn't get much beyond being a thought bubble.

While I have no opinion about whether my idea is right (I just know it's compelling to me), I do know that string theory is in the same boat, relatively speaking.

It isn't. Try searching google scholar, for instance, for papers on string theory. Read a few at random. Just look at the maths! It's fair to say that the concepts of string theory are just a tad more developed than your idea. String theory has been the subject of active research in physics departments worldwide for several decades. Thousands of physicists have worked on it. Thousands are currently working on it.

If a physicist said to me that they were 80% certain that string theory is correct, I would question that person's biases. Hell, over 50% would be an extremely bold stance.

I agree. How is "correct" to be judged, when there are no experimental tests that can distinguish the predictions of string theory from those of any other theory?

In order to make string theory work, they had to invent a whole bunch of new, as yes untestable, physical phenomena.

Not exactly. The string theory project aims to "unify" theories of the known phenomena, not invent new ones.

Probably, string theory does make novel predictions of its own about untested phenomena. What it needs to do, however, is to make testable predictions.

I would argue that my idea, at least on a purely conceptual level, doesn't leave any more to the imagination than string theory does.

See above. You've barely passed the starting line with your germ of an idea. String theory has been in development for decades and has a vast literature concerning it. On that basis, I'd say that your idea leaves quite a bit more to the imagination. In fact, to me, your idea strikes me as 100% imagination, as it currently stands. All the hard work is ahead of you.

One last thing. You wrote "While I have no opinion about whether my idea is right (I just know it's compelling to me)...". I would warn you about getting too attached to an idea just because it's yours. While it's great that you're excited about your idea, I don't see any reason you should regard it as "compelling". There's so much to do before it should start to convince anybody - yourself most of all - that you're onto something fruitful.

 

[jlinder87]

While I have no opinion about whether my idea is right (I just know it's compelling to me), I do know that string theory is in the same boat, relatively speaking. If a physicist said to me that they were 80% certain that string theory is correct, I would question that person's biases. Hell, over 50% would be an extremely bold stance. In order to make string theory work, they had to invent a whole bunch of new, as yes untestable, physical phenomena. I would argue that my idea, at least on a purely conceptual level, doesn't leave any more to the imagination than string theory does.

Not getting as much attention as he used to. It's nice to come across somebody else who understands the reference.

The complexity is there for a reason, though. It isn't just complexity for complexity's sake.

Any Theory of Everything has to be able to reproduce all the confirmed results from existing physics, as well as unifying all the fundamental interactions and such.

String theory reduces the particle zoo to one particle, in effect. Everything is made of strings. That particular simplification comes at a cost, however.

But you're just postulating a different, entirely theoretical object. Are you not?

There's no way to know, in the absence of any worked-out details or predictions from your idea.

Yes. I agree that's a problem.

With respect, my impression is that you're underestimating the complexity of the problem you're trying to solve.

The devil is in the detail, though. How would your particle mediate all the forces? How would it decide to be a massless spin 1 particle when acting like a photon, yet be a massive spin 1/2 particle when acting like an electron? How would it decide when to 'feel' the strong nuclear force and when not to? etc.

How?

The mechanism of particle interactions with the Higgs field has been fleshed out in mathematical detail, though. The Higgs mechanism also predicted the existence of a new particle, which was eventually found experimentally.

It makes sense, as far as it goes. But, again with respect, it doesn't get much beyond being a thought bubble.

It isn't. Try searching google scholar, for instance, for papers on string theory. Read a few at random. Just look at the maths! It's fair to say that the concepts of string theory are just a tad more developed than your idea. String theory has been the subject of active research in physics departments worldwide for several decades. Thousands of physicists have worked on it. Thousands are currently working on it.

I agree. How is "correct" to be judged, when there are no experimental tests that can distinguish the predictions of string theory from those of any other theory?

Not exactly. The string theory project aims to "unify" theories of the known phenomena, not invent new ones.

Probably, string theory does make novel predictions of its own about untested phenomena. What it needs to do, however, is to make testable predictions.

See above. You've barely passed the starting line with your germ of an idea. String theory has been in development for decades and has a vast literature concerning it. On that basis, I'd say that your idea leaves quite a bit more to the imagination. In fact, to me, your idea strikes me as 100% imagination, as it currently stands. All the hard work is ahead of you.

Agreed on all points! What I meant to say regarding string theory was that, from a purely conceptual standpoint, my idea does not require more leaps of faith (which may have been a sliiiiiiight exaggeration). String theory has been amazingly successful at creating an internally consistent mathematical framework that fits into our current observations. My idea is not even a speck compared to the galaxy sized body of work connected to string theory. I am very aware that my idea is just that, an idea. It has no mathematical framework, no predictions, nothing. As I've said before, I just wanted to share an idea I found compelling. I have no delusions about it becoming anything other than an interesting thought. My only real goal was to share it and engage with people about it, because thinking about this stuff is a borderline obsession of mine. This idea, for example, came into my head as I was getting into bed and thinking about how wonderfully odd it is that microwaves, x-rays, and radio waves are all the same damned thing. Next thing I know, it's midnight and I'm still awake thinking about whether there could be a single type of particle that just appears different to us because of intervening physical phenomena.

Thanks again for engaging with me on this idea. That is literally all I was looking for when I shared it. The biggest hurdle to getting that engagement seems to be that most people assume I'm some kind of crackpot who actually believes in my idea. Humans are fully capable of having ideas without believing in them. That's why we have electric monks.