Has Anyone Split the Electron Yet?

For that matter, the proton, neutron, positron, antiproton, antineutron, quark (and its multiplicities), and/or lepton (and its multiplicities)? Force particle splitting would be welcome. What are the differentials of the apparatus, theoretically, and practically?

A personal opinion is that developments in this area can correspondingly reduce the rate of all known causes of death. Would new causes of death develop?

Originally posted by GreatTech
For that matter, the proton, neutron, positron, antiproton, antineutron, quark (and its multiplicities), and/or lepton (and its multiplicities)?

My son is taking courses under one of the more prominent researchers in this area, DH Youngblood. As I understand it, they have mathematical models but I'm not sure that it has been captured in cloud chamber yet.

Force particle splitting would be welcome. What are the differentials of the apparatus, theoretically, and practically?

I've looked at some of the research and I'm not sure there's a quick way to put it in simple English.

A personal opinion is that developments in this area can correspondingly reduce the rate of all known causes of death.

If you mean human death, the answer is that it's not very likely. The major particles decay so infrequently (something on the order of billions of years) that they don't impact human lifespan. The quarks and so forth are so short-lived that they are here and gone in less than 1/100th of a second.

Would new causes of death develop?

Human death? No. Particle "death" -- no. Particles that don't remain stable have been long gone from the universe (which, remember, is 14 billion years old or so.)

Son said he'd send me more specific links... the ones I have are very deep from a mathematical standpoint and are REALLY difficult to read.

Originally posted by GreatTech
For that matter, the proton, neutron, positron, antiproton, antineutron, quark (and its multiplicities), and/or lepton (and its multiplicities)? Force particle splitting would be welcome. What are the differentials of the apparatus, theoretically, and practically?

A personal opinion is that developments in this area can correspondingly reduce the rate of all known causes of death. Would new causes of death develop?

I think particle physics can be a very big factor in Human Longevity.

It would be very interesting if we could find the Higgs Boson. the so called GOD particle. This discovery could give us a good understanding of mass and answering the question of why matter has mass.

It would also go along way to explaining why the galaxy has more mass in it than we can see (The so called Dark Matter)

What bearing could that have on death??? Hmmm well I can imagine a mode of transport that has some form of an inertia dampening field so that even in the event of an accident non of the energies actually travel to the commuter..... That would save a few lives I would think....

Then what about the bigger picture?? If we could understand how to manipulate mass wouldn't we then have ability to release pressure at stress points on the tectonic plates? Avoiding mass life loss by controlled earth quakes?? (Or the dark side be able to cause earth quake and take life)…..

Or be able to deflect any incoming asteroids or comet by a mass changing energy beam??????

Sounds too far fetched?? Not really... we are actually on schedule to finish the Large Hadron colider at CERN in 2007. With this massive particle accelerator we will for the first time have enough power to discover proofs for the theory.

We will all have to wait and see but 2007 / 2008 will surely be a very exciting time.

All the best people.

NeoN HaZe.


[edit on 22-3-2006 by Neon Haze]

A perhaps related question.. ive been looking up some info about Nicola Tesla, maybe i should have delved deeper.. but what kinds of particles are those in the VPF (Virtual Paricle Flux or Aether).. are they unknown particles or known ones like say neutrinos ?

sorry if hijacking thread.. but thought it might be related somehow

[edit on 22-3-2006 by SilverSurfer]

Is it even possible to split an electron? If it is composed of one quark, isn't it - effectively - indivisable?

But, assuming it could be split, how on earth does that help reduce the rate of death? I totally fail to see any kind of connection in those topics.

Next, splitting it, although it could create some kind of wierd radiation, wouldn't be harmful unless the splitting caused a chain reaction. A lot of really harmful radiation passes straight through you every day - it's just that there's not a lot of it and so usually it doesn't do anything.

Finally, the Aether was a concept used to try to describe the propogation of light as a wave through space without there being a visible medium for it. All waves travel through something, and so if light was a wave (which all studies seemed to suggest), then it should/had to travel through something to get here. It was imagined that there was an invisible field of "stuff" called the Aether that could carry the wave.

However, Einstein then came up with his Special Theory of Relativity that created a universe that didn't need the Aether for light to traverse a vacuum.

Shortly afterwards, the Michelson-Morley experiment (which had set out to measure the aether's effects) had actually ended up DISPROVING what they set out to find!

Ever since, the Aether has - more or less - been a dead issue. Some people still bring it up, such as in Quantum Aether, but it's largely regarded as a useless machination that was only concieved of because it made things nice and simple, which they are not.

If the Aether did exist, it's hard to imagine what it would be made of. It would have to be a massless material/field that permeates the cosmos. It has to be able to form "waves" (thus allowing light as a wave to pass through it), but those waves can affect really anything else.

Thanks for all your comments. I believe in the principle that particle energy and direction can never be precisely known but division by division by division by... is required for more precise estimates. Ultimately, it is eternal splitting.

Originally posted by GreatTech
For that matter, the proton, neutron, positron, antiproton, antineutron, quark (and its multiplicities), and/or lepton (and its multiplicities)? Force particle splitting would be welcome. What are the differentials of the apparatus, theoretically, and practically?

Electrons and positrons are leptons. As far as anyone can tell, no proof whatsoever has been found that these have an internal structure and physicists still consider these to be elementary particles. Protons and neutrons are agglomerates of quarks which have not been splitted in the strictest sense. Single quarks can also not exist according to QED if not mistaking and will also never be produced according to many theorists. Noone has determined either so far whether quarks have a substructure or even how many generations of quarks and leptons there are (currently we are at three). Each generation has higher rest masses and hence energies, which makes some people believe that these "new generations" are simply excitations and that further excitations would be found at higher energies, but no essentially new particles would be found. This is used as an argument sometimes cited against building ever more powerful and ever more expensive accelerators.

www.linnaeus.uu.se...

As of 2002 (and I believe still today), electrons are considered fundamental particles. In other words, they're as small as they can get and can't be split. However, particle physicists, for the most part, recall the days when they said that about protons, neutrons, and even atoms, so they're still looking. Fermions (electrons, quarks) and Bosons (gluons, photons) are currently considered the smallest pieces of anything. However, with the discovery of quarks, and that the direction of their spin is all it takes to make a proton or a neutron, has caused several particle physicists to suspect that even these bosons and fermions may have a single particle making up each of them.

So it hasn't been done yet, to my knowledge. Protons and neutrons have, though, which is what led to the physical proof backing up the mathematics of the Standard Model and quarks.

There are two parts to the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle:

1. I am unsure as exactly how his name is spelled

2. You can know the position of an electron, but not its velocity. Conversely, you can know the velocity of an electron, but not its position.

If you can't do both, it would be very hard to capture an electron, let alone spit one.

Well... there are those chelating ligands that you learn about in Inorganic Chemistry. There are some that can capture an electron inside. In fact I have my little Inorganic Chemistry book. Lemme take a peek.

Phooey I can't find it. Someone else who knows it off the top of their head can tell us all about it. Of course, the trapped electron isn't just magically floating in the middle of this moleculte - it interacts somehow, and so the idea may be useless as well.

Yes i achieved the splitting of the electron last night, on the bog after to many beers and a suspect curry.

[edit on 23-3-2006 by Peruvianmonk]

Jake and Simon's information matches what I've gotten from other sources. And Ralph, no, the chelators don't split electrons.

I don't think you quite understand the concept of splitting...with an electron the only thing I'm aware that you can split is charge.

Like Ralph said above.. You can't pinpoint the exact location of an electron. Now another thing... If I'm not mistaken (and correct me if I'm wrong), an electron can behave as a particle and as a wave. In other words, it's not always a physical particle. So how do you split it that way?

There was a guy who claimed to have split the electron by splitting a free electron bubble in liquid Helium, and then measured fractional charges fo electrons in the current. Here is a link in Laymens terms:

www.physlink.com...

Originally posted by Ralph_The_Wonder_Llama
Well... there are those chelating ligands that you learn about in Inorganic Chemistry. There are some that can capture an electron inside. In fact I have my little Inorganic Chemistry book. Lemme take a peek.

When a chemist says a molecule captures an electron they mean it in a totally different sense to a physist. A chemist could say that a single covalent bond captures two electrons but this definately doesnt mean they are stationary or it is easier in any way to measure their positions or velocities.

Originally posted by junglejake
However, with the discovery of quarks, and that the direction of their spin is all it takes to make a proton or a neutron, has caused several particle physicists to suspect that even these bosons and fermions may have a single particle making up each of them.

If bosons and fermions were made up of a single particle, how does this make them any easier to split?

-George

The origins of uncertainty entail almost as much personality as they do physics. Heisenberg's route to uncertainty lies in a debate that began in early 1926 between Heisenberg and his closest colleagues on the one hand, who espoused the "matrix" form of quantum mechanics, and Erwin Schrödinger and his colleagues on the other, who espoused the new "wave mechanics."

The more precisely the position is determined, the less precisely the momentum is known in this instant, and vice versa. - Heisenberg, uncertainty paper, 1927

This is a succinct statement of the "uncertainty relation" between the position and the momentum (mass times velocity) of a subatomic particle, such as an electron. This relation has profound implications for such fundamental notions as causality and the determination of the future behavior of an atomic particle.

Because of the scientific and philosophical implications of the seemingly harmless sounding uncertainty relations, physicists speak of an uncertainty principle, which is often called more descriptively the "principle of indeterminacy."

I knew of [Heisenberg's] theory, of course, but I felt discouraged, not to say repelled, by the methods of transcendental algebra, which appeared difficult to me, and by the lack of visualizability. - Schrödinger in 1926

I had no faith in a theory that ran completely counter to our Copenhagen conception. - Heisenberg, recollection

The more I think about the physical portion of Schrödinger's theory, the more repulsive I find it...What Schrödinger writes about the visualizability of his theory 'is probably not quite right,' in other words it's crap. - Heisenberg, writing to Pauli, 1926

Originally posted by Byrd
Jake and Simon's information matches what I've gotten from other sources. And Ralph, no, the chelators don't split electrons.

I was just toying with the idea of even capturing one in order to split one. I know that chelating ligands don't split electrons.