Timeline for Theoretically, could there be different types of protons and electrons?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
16 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 8, 2016 at 21:25 | comment | added | PaddiM8 | Thank you! This was exactly what I was going for, and now that you mentioned it this way, it does make sense. I couldn't explain it better, and your answer helped me a lot! | |
| Oct 8, 2016 at 21:23 | vote | accept | PaddiM8 | ||
| Oct 7, 2016 at 23:29 | comment | added | dmckee --- ex-moderator kitten | This may be too strongly stated. Protons and neutrons bound in nuclei have measurably different form-factors than those not bound in nuclei, and the form-factor differences are a function of $Z$. Of course, any proton you situate in a nucleus will have the same altered form-factor as any other proton so situated, but they will all be different than those not so situated. | |
| Oct 5, 2016 at 10:15 | comment | added | Luaan | @Kaz When you can easily factorize them (a proton here, a proton there), sure. But you're only tracking the factorizations; when that's no longer the case (as in the "shuffle them in a box" case, or even inside the nucleus), there's no way to track any individual proton in an interaction - particles don't work that way. Some people interpreted this as "every proton is one", but that's not substantiated by any evidence I know of, and has a higher burden of proof than the currently accepted QFT model, and naïvely seems to violate lots of basic laws of physics (e.g. GR). | |
| Oct 4, 2016 at 19:15 | comment | added | valerio | @Kaz This means that the correct description of subatomic particles is through wave functions, which are entities which can spread out over time and overlap. If two protons are close enough, their wave functions will overlap, and we will not be able to tell one from the other, even if they are out of the black box. For more info, read this. About your last question, I don't know if I t fully understand it. In any case, i don't know the answer. | |
| Oct 4, 2016 at 19:14 | comment | added | valerio | @Kaz I meant identical with respect to their inherent properties. Of course they can have different position and velocity, but all their inherent properties, like charge, mass, spin etc. will be the same. Also, be careful, because sometimes it is also impossible to tell one proton from another using their position and velocity. It would be possible if subatomic particles were governed by classical mechanics, but they are governed by quantum mechanics instead. | |
| Oct 4, 2016 at 18:25 | comment | added | Kaz | Or, am I wrong? Could it be the case that there is only one proton, and the proliferation of multiple protons is just some kind of projection: of the one proton into different spaces that endow the projections with additional attributes. | |
| Oct 4, 2016 at 18:20 | comment | added | Kaz | Protons are not quite identical, because then there would only be one proton. The fact is that when you don't put them into a black box and mix them up, you can tell that there are two and they are distinguished by some position in space, velocity and other parameters. That is to say, a given proton A, and a distinct proton B differ in one regard: whatever makes them distinct protons and not one proton. They are just the same in all else, as far as we can tell. (Maybe with a powerful enough quantum microscope, we can find a little serial number on each one.) | |
| Oct 4, 2016 at 18:01 | history | edited | valerio | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 9 characters in body
|
| Oct 4, 2016 at 17:44 | history | edited | valerio | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 106 characters in body
|
| Oct 4, 2016 at 17:40 | comment | added | valerio | @jpaugh No, I am saying that electrons are indistinguishable between them and protons are indistinguishable between them. Maybe the first sentence is a bit misleading...I will try to make it clearer. | |
| Oct 4, 2016 at 17:03 | comment | added | jpaugh | Are you saying than electrons are indistinguishable from protons? Under certain experiments, that might be true, but... they definitely are distinguishable under others! | |
| Oct 4, 2016 at 7:59 | comment | added | valerio | @PeterMortensen I meant to say that I don't know about a theoretical reason why all protons are identical. | |
| Oct 4, 2016 at 2:53 | comment | added | Peter Mortensen | Re: "there is not a theoretical reason why it should be so". Don't you mean "there is not a theoretical reason why it should not be so"? | |
| Oct 3, 2016 at 20:22 | comment | added | bright-star | This is probably the most useful, direct, and satisfying answer in my opinion. | |
| Oct 3, 2016 at 15:47 | history | answered | valerio | CC BY-SA 3.0 |