A particle purely made of nuclear force

October 13, 2015, Vienna University of Technology
Nucleons consist (left) of quarks (matter particles) and gluons (force particles). A glueball (right) is made up purely of gluons.

Scientists at TU Wien (Vienna) have calculated that the meson f0(1710) could be a very special particle – the long-sought-after glueball, a particle composed of pure force.

For decades, scientists have been looking for so-called "glueballs". Now it seems they have been found at last. A glueball is an exotic particle, made up entirely of gluons – the "sticky" particles that keep nuclear particles together. Glueballs are unstable and can only be detected indirectly, by analysing their decay. This decay process, however, is not yet fully understood.

Professor Anton Rebhan and Frederic Brünner from TU Wien (Vienna) have now employed a new theoretical approach to calculate glueball decay. Their results agree extremely well with data from particle accelerator experiments. This is strong evidence that a resonance called "f0(1710)", which has been found in various experiments, is in fact the long-sought glueball. Further experimental results are to be expected in the next few months.

Forces are Particles too

Protons and neutrons consist of even smaller elementary particles called . These quarks are bound together by strong . "In particle physics, every force is mediated by a special kind of force particle, and the force particle of the strong nuclear force is the gluon", says Anton Rebhan (TU Wien).

Gluons can be seen as more complicated versions of the photon. The massless photons are responsible for the forces of electromagnetism, while eight different kinds of gluons play a similar role for the strong nuclear force. However, there is one important difference: gluons themselves are subject to their own force, photons are not. This is why there are no bound states of photons, but a particle that consists only of bound gluons, of pure nuclear force, is in fact possible.

In 1972, shortly after the theory of quarks and gluons was formulated, the physicists Murray Gell-Mann and Harald Fritsch speculated about possible bound states of pure gluons (originally called "gluonium", today the term "glueball" is used). Several particles have been found in particle accelerator experiments which are considered to be viable candidates for glueballs, but there has never been a scientific consensus on whether or not one of these signals could in fact be the mysterious particle made of pure force. Instead of a glueball, the signals found in the experiments could also be a combination of quarks and antiquarks. Glueballs are too short-lived to detect them directly. If they exist, they have to be identified by studying their decay.

Candidate f0(1710) decays strangely

"Unfortunately, the decay pattern of glueballs cannot be calculated rigorously", says Anton Rebhan. Simplified model calculations have shown that there are two realistic candidates for glueballs: the mesons called f0(1500) and f0(1710). For a long time, the former was considered to be the most promising candidate. The latter has a higher mass, which agrees better with computer simulations, but when it decays, it produces many heavy quarks (the so-called "strange quarks"). To many particle scientists, this seemed implausible, because gluon interactions do not usually differentiate between heavier and lighter quarks.

Anton Rebhan and his PhD-student Frederic Brünner have now made a major step forward in solving this puzzle by trying a different approach. There are fundamental connections between quantum theories describing the behaviour of particles in our three dimensional world and certain kinds of gravitation theories in higher dimensional spaces. This means that certain quantum physical questions can be answered using tools from gravitational physics.

"Our calculations show that it is indeed possible for glueballs to decay predominantly into strange quarks", says Anton Rebhan. Surprisingly, the calculated decay pattern into two lighter particles agrees extremely well with the decay pattern measured for f0(1710). In addition to that, other decays into more than two are possible. Their have been calculated too.

Further Data is Expected Soon

Up until now, these alternative glueball decays have not been measured, but within the next few months, two experiments at the Large Hadron Collider at CERN (TOTEM and LHCb) and one accelerator experiment in Beijing (BESIII) are expected to yield new data. "These results will be crucial for our theory", says Anton Rebhan. "For these multi-particle processes, our theory predicts decay rates which are quite different from the predictions of other, simpler models. If the measurements agree with our calculations, this will be a remarkable success for our approach." It would be overwhelming evidence for f0(1710) being a glueball. And in addition to that, it would once again show that higher dimensional gravity can be used to answer questions from – in a way it would be one more big success of Einstein's theory of general relativity, which turns 100 years old next month.

Explore further: Long-searched-for glueball could soon be detected

More information: Frederic Brünner et al. "Nonchiral Enhancement of Scalar Glueball Decay in the Witten-Sakai-Sugimoto Model," Physical Review Letters (2015). DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.115.131601

Related Stories

Long-searched-for glueball could soon be detected

December 5, 2014

(Phys.org) —While the Higgs boson may be the most famous elusive particle in particle physics, a lesser known particle that has continued to elude even the most powerful high-energy experiments to date is the glueball, ...

Maybe it wasn't the Higgs particle after all

November 7, 2014

Last year CERN announced the finding of a new elementary particle, the Higgs particle. But maybe it wasn't the Higgs particle, maybe it just looks like it. And maybe it is not alone.

New method to better understand atomic nuclei

September 24, 2015

The precise structure of atomic nuclei is an old problem that has not been fully solved yet, and it also constitutes a current research focus in the field of natural sciences. Together with colleagues from Bonn University, ...

Recommended for you

When mixing granular matter, order among disorder

August 14, 2018

Mixing liquids is easy, or at least scientifically understood: a drop of food coloring will eventually mix into a cup of water through diffusion, and a dollop of cream can be mixed into coffee with a spoon through what is ...

How hot is Schrodinger's coffee?

August 14, 2018

A new uncertainty relation, linking the precision with which temperature can be measured and quantum mechanics, has been discovered at the University of Exeter.

56 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

shavera
2.7 / 5 (7) Oct 13, 2015
It's interesting to me that glueballs would have some standard mass at all. My first guess about them would have been just some 'random' amount of gluons bound together into a particle, and thus, a mass of whatever binding energy happened to exist in that particle.

I wonder if there's a kind of base-configuration of gluons that stabilise around a certain binding energy? Like 3 'valence' gluons (in some superposition of color states) have some nominal binding energy between them perhaps?
Nattydread
3.2 / 5 (5) Oct 13, 2015
Mass is just bound energy, like the electron mass is debatably just bound electromagnetic energy. Likewise with glueballs and the strong force. Gluons account for much of the proton mass.
docile
Oct 13, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Returners
1.9 / 5 (9) Oct 13, 2015
Relativity still doesn't nail the precession of Mercury perfectly, even though it is currently the most accurate known theory. Now this is a macroscopic event that happens over a period of months and years, and has been studied for centuries, and still nobody can correctly explain it or model it.

But you want to use the same theory to try to understand short-lived artificial particles which don't even exist in the universe at large?

Seems like a big waste of tax dollars to me.

You guys allegedly found the Higgs a few years ago, or at least a "higgs-like" boson. Seeing as how it is allegedly the source of mass, one would think you'd try to better understand that particle, any variants of it, and how it might be used for some good purpose given the insane amount of time and money spent looking for it.

Admittedly, your "glueball" might turn out to be the secret to interstellar engines or something...

...or it could just be a waste of money...
Returners
1.9 / 5 (9) Oct 13, 2015
oh study away though.

I propose a hypothetical...imagine if you could produce a low energy way of producing these "glueballs" and then use the glueballs as a fuel source. not sure "fuel" is the best word here, since you say they are pure "force".

I wonder what manner of hypothetical rocket engine or warp drive or anti-gravity or some such might be concocted if you could find a reaction which can produce a stable version of these particles? I guess that will be left to the experimentalists and NASA to do the calculations once more data is collected.

Where is the illusive Graviton?
Where is the illusive particle which makes up space-time itself? The Higgs Field appears to have space-time-like properties because it produces mass, and thereby influences space-time directly (allegedly), but what is "space" really made of?

WE know from Casimir force and virtual particles that space is made of something, and it apparently has a very, very long stable lifetime.
Returners
1.9 / 5 (9) Oct 13, 2015
Where is the "Gravition" and the "Spaceton/space-time-ton/chronoton-whatever"?

Do we even have a theory of what energy level they might exist at, or what manner of accelerator and detectors might be needed to observe them "directly"?

oh, but here's a kicker...

If a Glueball is made of pure force, then I am correct, and the definition of Energy is flawed.

Why? Conservation of units is important in mathematical models.

Force =/= energy.

Therefore a Glueball would have no energy, and would consequently have no mass if it indeed is made of pure force.

Force: kg*m/s^2 ->(Newtons)
Energy: kg*(m^2/s^2) -> (Joules)

I told them energy was a ficticious substance, and that only "momentum potential" (force/force fields) existed.

I was mocked, called a crank, and banned from multiple physics forums WITHOUT rational debate...

Now you find a particle which is pure force(momentum potential) without energy.

Once again vindicated, and classical physics needs revised.
Returners
1.9 / 5 (9) Oct 13, 2015
The way we are charged on an electric bill needs to be revised now, because "energy" is a ficticious construct which uses an additional quadratic in the numerator. Force and Momentum, which are real things, do not use a quadratic in the numerator.

I have known about this for about 5 years or so ever since I discovered it independently while trying to understand the apparent conservation law contradiction (you can't conserve both momentum and energy in certain situations, even though the laws of physics says it's supposed to work)...

Now that you have discoverd a particle which has force without energy or mass, I win.

I win.

Theories involving mass-energy and especially thermal and kinetic energy and electric energy will now need to be re-examined to better understand the processes which make up our world.

We are transporting electrons around entire regions to power computers...and they charge us for "energy" when "momentum" actually does the work...
Returners
1.8 / 5 (10) Oct 13, 2015
Mass is just bound energy, like the electron mass is debatably just bound electromagnetic energy. Likewise with glueballs and the strong force. Gluons account for much of the proton mass.


But your God, Einstein, says that Energy = MC^2

Force is not Energy, so mass cannot come from gluons.

Kinetic Energy is a ficticious measure.
Only momentum and force exist.

Einstein was wrong.

What is being release in nuclear explosions is not "energy".

It is "momentum potential" which is "Force".

The cranks over on physicsforum who banned me should be ashamed.

F =/= E....they don't even have the same units!!

So if a "glueball" is indeed pure force, it would in fact be totally massless.
Returners
1.5 / 5 (8) Oct 13, 2015
In Newton's mechanics, "Force" is the actual actor.

Notions of "Energy" are used as intermediary calculation tools.

Let's take a body falling in gravity. The easy approximation of Potential Energy is

Ep = Mgh

Which gives units in Joules.

However, just because you can produce a calculation which produces units of Joules, does not mean that any such thing called a "Joule" actually exists in the reality. It is just an artifact of an intermediary step in a calculation.

Now we want to know the momentum (remember I said it was a momentum potenial, or force).

So what is the velocity of the object on impact? Easy to calculate. It's square is simply "gh".

Not bad. So if an object falls for 4.9meters, it will be moving 9.8m/s when it hits the earth (havin averaged 4.9m/s velocity for the fall).

momentum here is mass multiplied by 9.8m/s, and this makes more sense intuitively because Momentum is a linear term while "energy" is a quadatic term.

Distance is linear...
Returners
1.4 / 5 (9) Oct 13, 2015
Because distance is linear, it makes sense that the property of the object being modified by the gravitational force would also be modified linearly. turns out Momentum is modified linearly, therefore momentum is the "real" property of the moving object.

"Energy" is a mathematical quirk created by an incomplete calculation.

This has ramifications for thermodynamics, Entropy, and chemistry as well.

Oh, not an easy thing for a physics professor who is the administrator of a physics forum to accept....alll too easy to ban the "noob" and continue your day, instead of giving this stuff serious thought.

The problem with theoretical physicists is they don't think enough. They just do what the guy before them did, without understanding it.

This explains the apparent contradiction of how two colliding objects in classical physics could conserve momentum while losing energy, even in a vacuum. Entropy/heat waste alone does not explain this, contrary to professor's lessons.
Returners
1.5 / 5 (8) Oct 13, 2015
The solution to the contradiction is that "kinetic Energy" simply does not exist.

Heat is therefore not "energy" as no such thing exists. It is some sort of force-carrier or momentum-based property. Photons have momentum after all,) which you can actually feel if you go outside on a clear summer day, it is possible to feel the radiation pressure from photons. This is momentum, not energy.

Energy (as in the units we call "Joules") is a mathematical artifact of an incomplete calculation. It does not exist in the real world.

Returners
1.5 / 5 (8) Oct 13, 2015
For example, in the conservation of momentum vs conservation of energy paradox, by taking masses which have more and more different initial masses and velocities, it is possible to have a collision which, on paper, results in the two objects conserving all of the momentum, but losing virtually all of the "kinetic energy".

This happens because Ek is a ficticious quadratic value which is heavily weighted by the velocity of the faster moving object, while momentum is a linear value which is weighted by the mass of the larger object just as much as it is weighted by the velocity of the smaller object.

Standard explaination given by teachers is that Ek it goes away as heat waste, and violates no laws, and thermodynamic equations in say chemistry and such represent this as entropy, etc, etc.

This is preposterous.

If true, planets would radiate enormous amounts of "energy" just from gravity changing their direction along orbits, for example. Not observed.
Returners
1.5 / 5 (8) Oct 13, 2015
Tidal interactions change the distribution of momentum of objects in orbital systems, but it stays the same in total.

Jupiter's Io? It's momentum, not "energy", which causes the moon to continue to be melted from the inside, powering volcanism (a transfer of angular momentum within a system is required to move magma).

Einstein was wrong. wrong. Wrong.

I can't propose how to fix it all, but it's wrong.

Chemical bonds are a "force", so then why do scientists say "energy" (such as ek or heat) is needed to break a bond that is a "force"?

You can't subtract a value from another value which doesn't have the same units...

F - E ~= F'....this is an incongruent expression.

"Energy" is not what breaks chemical or nuclear bonds.
Force is what breaks bonds, because the bonds are Force...

F1 - F2 = F3, is a congruent statement.

It's all wrong. I always has been.

docile
Oct 13, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
my2cts
3.8 / 5 (13) Oct 13, 2015
Tidal interactions ...
Jupiter's Io? It's momentum, not "energy", ...
Einstein was wrong. wrong. Wrong.

I can't propose how to fix it all, but it's wrong.

Chemical bonds are a "force", so then why do scientists say "energy" (such as ek or heat) is needed to break a bond that is a "force"?

You can't subtract a value from another value which doesn't have the same units...

F - E ~= F'....this is an incongruent expression.

"Energy" is not what breaks chemical or nuclear bonds.
Force is what breaks bonds, because the bonds are Force...

F1 - F2 = F3, is a congruent statement.

It's all wrong. I always has been.


Returners you are beginning to scare me. Seriously.
Returners
1.7 / 5 (6) Oct 13, 2015
Returners you are beginning to scare me. Seriously.

What causes Fusion to happen in Stars? Give the Standard Model response.

I already know, but this is rhetorical. you answer.
docile
Oct 13, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
docile
Oct 13, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Returners
1.7 / 5 (6) Oct 13, 2015
So...Force causes the nuclear bonds in elemental hydrogen to fail, and merge into Helium. This releases "something" which is presently called "energy" in the standard model.

But I just showed how "energy" is a ficticious substance arising from an intermediary calculation.

Photons have "momentum" even though they supposedly have no mass (but they are said to have "energy" which is a contradiction of Einstein's formula). Either way it's bad science really.

But gravity acts on photons, and gravity is a force (newton) which changes momentum. Force is in units which is essentially the measure of the rate of change of momentum.

There is no energy. There is only the Force.
docile
Oct 13, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Returners
1.7 / 5 (6) Oct 13, 2015
Maybe Gravitons are just an unknown type of Guon...one which can somehow tunnel between the two objects it binds together....or maybe the Graviton is "stretched out" across the space between the two objects, like the paradoxical "dual nature" of light, maybe "Gravitons" are both waves and particles...

It appears that since some elementary particles have such tiny masses, that in order to mediate the "force" of gravity between massive particles, the Gravitons must be truly "small" indeed....even though they somehow communicate "information" across cosmic scales.

Is it somehow a unit of "curvature"? No, I have shown that curvature of space-time alone is not sufficient to explain certain gravitational phenomena, and in some reference frames you still need a "force"...

So gravity is possibly both a "force" and a "curvature"...

For example, inside a star it is hard to conceive of how "curvature" could produce the pressure to fuse hydrogen without "force".
Returners
1.7 / 5 (6) Oct 13, 2015
Here's an example.

If I have a rope, and I put a loop around a water balloon. If I pull on the ends of the rope, my FORCE exerts pressure on the balloon. True, as the rope tightens, the curvature of the rope increases (curvature as defined in formal calculus,) because a smaller loop is more curved.

However, the action is not coming from the mass, nor from the curvature of the rope itself. The action is coming from the force I exert on the rope. The rope is just a medium by which the force is being transferred.

Now if I pull on the rope hard enough (force) it will burst the water balloon (analogous to fusing hydrogen atoms)...

curvature of the rope is involved in bursting the balloon, it is in no way the "cause" of bursting the balloon. The cause is the Force. In fact, the curvature is limited by the water and balloon's ability to resist deformation, which is itself a force analogous to radiation pressure and other counter-forces inside a star.

force breaks the bond.
docile
Oct 13, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Returners
1.7 / 5 (6) Oct 13, 2015
"Energy" is not released by nuclear fusion.
Momentum is released, because the nuclear bond is a Force, and Force is "potential momentum", which that asshole administrator on physics forum banned me for pointing that out based on the case of a fire in zero gravity, etc.

Now we can understand why light has momentum, because nuclear bonds are force, and force is potential momentum, so when light is released from a nuclear reaction it is momentum, not the false "energy" concept.

Now the paradox is properly solved.

Now I shall re-examine the crab nebula pulsar contradiction and see if I can find a new, better explanation of the alleged "missing mass" problem, because equations which use momentum tend to behave a bit better than do those which use the fake construct "energy".

"E = MC^2" will have to be replaced with something more accurate. Not sure what at the moment, but someone will eventually figure it out.

No, "Close enough" doesn't cut it in physics.
Returners
1.7 / 5 (6) Oct 13, 2015
These deductions are therefore not only compliant with dense aether model, but also with fundamental principles of existing theories. The massive character of photons is just a consequence of these fundamental laws. If the physicists would follow these basic principle consequently, they would get into the same conclusions already before many years.


You can't have "quantized Energy" anyway, because energy is quadratic. Velocity is linear. increasing velocity linearly means momentum goes up linearly. If we have quantum momentum increasing it linearly would increase "energy" quadraticaly...why should "Energons" increase quadratically while momentons increase linearly?

That would be nonsens.

I therefore conclude that "Energy" is a ficticious substance used as a place-holder during calculations, and does not actually represent a material thing in reality, and may be a flawed concept all together.
Returners
1.8 / 5 (5) Oct 13, 2015
I want to know why a baseball comes back down to Earth. The real "How" of gravity...not just some formula that describes a parabola.

Returners
1.8 / 5 (5) Oct 13, 2015
If "information" does not escape black holes, then how does the space-time just outside the event horizon "know" how much it is supposed to be curved?

Where does this information come from? the mass is inside the event horizon, lets say 5km radius...how does the mass "tell" the space 10km away that it should be curved by a certain amount, since that "information" would have to cross the event horizon in order to get there?

Clearly something fishy is going on with these models of space-time.

Quantum tunneling? The gravitons teleport beyond the event horizon without ever crossing it?

Globular Cluster:

How can space and time be curved in the direction of everything?
jsdarkdestruction
4 / 5 (12) Oct 13, 2015
I was so we excited when I saw the article and that it had a lot of comments. What do I find? An article that didn't disappoint but then a bunch of spam from returners. *sigh*
Uncle Ira
3.4 / 5 (10) Oct 13, 2015
Relativity still doesn't nail the precession of Mercury perfectly, even though it is currently the most accurate known theory. Now this is a macroscopic event that happens over a period of months and years, and has been studied for centuries, and still nobody can correctly explain it or model it.


I can tell you why that is Skippy. It is because of your favorite thing you used to say all the time. Nobody has ever been able to solve the N-body problems because it is to complicated for the best computers we got so far. As the computers get better and better the problem with Mercury gets smaller and smaller. And that is all the smart-Skippys are fine and dandy with the Einstein-Skippy's relativity stuffs, it works just fine but they need for the tech guys to catch up with better hardwares.
Uncle Ira
3.5 / 5 (11) Oct 13, 2015
@ Zephir-Skippy. Cher you are not supposed to for your self. Twice. And you are not supposed to vote against peoples twice either using the puppets.

Cher, is it about time for you to get a little taste of censoring thing again and have to start all over again like the last four dozens of times? Try to go by the rules Podna or there will have to be some repercussioning again.
Uncle Ira
3.4 / 5 (10) Oct 13, 2015
P.S. for you Zephir-Skippy.

If you want to do the 25 puppet voting thing again, it's okayeei with me and no problem. Maybe that will keep you busy for awhile so you are not littering up the place for a couple days with your AW&T stuffs.
docile
Oct 13, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Uncle Ira
2.7 / 5 (7) Oct 13, 2015
You can observe similar effects at the water surface too, Ira-Skippy. The small ripples penetrate there mutually like the ghosts. But when they get http://www.abc.ne...878.htm, they behave like particles and they attract another waves from their neighborhood like sorta massive object. One wave can steal energy from surrounding waves and grow at their expense into a gigantic size - so called freak wave.


Well Cher, I thank you for clearing that up for me. I already knew about the water ripples but I did not know they could steal energies.
Hyperfuzzy
3.4 / 5 (5) Oct 13, 2015
This is a joke, right?
docile
Oct 13, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Hyperfuzzy
2.6 / 5 (5) Oct 13, 2015
Is theoretical physics becoming a modern fantasy!
docile
Oct 13, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Benni
1.8 / 5 (5) Oct 13, 2015
Photons have "momentum" even though they supposedly have no mass (but they are said to have "energy" which is a contradiction of Einstein's formula). Either way it's bad science really


It is not a contradiction of E=mc*2 because Einstein in fact thought of ENERGY & MASS as exactly the same things, he never distinguished between the two, it has been those who followed after him who started labeling photons as being "massless", they are not else photons could not have inherent detectable gravity fields.

But gravity acts on photons
.....and vice versa for the reason I pointed out above.

There is no energy. There is only the Force.
....if you viewed MASS/ENERGY in the same manner as Einstein as I pointed out above, you'd be right, but ONLY if you recognize photons & mass are intrinsic transformed states of one another. By comparison WATER/ICE are two different states of the same thing, that being H2O, it is the same analogy for MASS/ENERGY without a name.
Mimath224
3.7 / 5 (3) Oct 13, 2015
I'm interested in this type of research because I wounder if it will put more clarity on how quarks change from one flavour to another via the W- & W+ bosons processes which keep the Sun going and not fizzling out in just a few million years.
LagomorphZero
3.4 / 5 (5) Oct 14, 2015
Returners... Force and Energy are related but not the same. It is only at a non physics discussion level that they are used interchangeably.


Force: kg*m/s^2 ->(Newtons)
Energy: kg*(m^2/s^2) -> (Joules)


Energy is a force applied over distance.

So kg*(m^2/s^2) = (kg*m/s^2)*m = Joules = Newtons*meters
Returners
2 / 5 (4) Oct 14, 2015
I know what the units are.

I'm saying one of them is an artifact of the mathematics, and doesn't actually represent a tangible thing in the real world.
Returners
1.8 / 5 (5) Oct 15, 2015
Relativity still doesn't nail the precession of Mercury perfectly, even though it is currently the most accurate known theory. Now this is a macroscopic event that happens over a period of months and years, and has been studied for centuries, and still nobody can correctly explain it or model it.


I can tell you why that is Skippy. It is because of your favorite thing you used to say all the time. Nobody has ever been able to solve the N-body problems because it is to complicated for the best computers we got so far. As the computers get better and better the problem with Mercury gets smaller and smaller. And that is all the smart-Skippys are fine and dandy with the Einstein-Skippy's relativity stuffs, it works just fine but they need for the tech guys to catch up with better hardwares.


Good point. Maybe they aren't using enough data. Like put all known asterids and comets, etc, not just major planets...
Returners
1.8 / 5 (5) Oct 15, 2015
Returners you are beginning to scare me. Seriously.


I scare myself too sometimes.

You have to understand the mathematical model we have called "physics" is just a model. It is not reality itself. It is incorrect to make a model, and then re-interpret reality based on the model, which is what modern physicists are doing.

Observation->Model = good
Observation->compare->Improved Model = good
Observation->Model->Reality must be thus and so = Bad

Look, it all works well enough for ordianry things and satellites and stuff, but if we are looking at the very large, the very distant, then the sum of seemingly insignificant errors adds up.

If we are looking at the very small, our error is very big.

If these "Glueballs" are made of "pure force", where is the particle made of "pure energy"?

If you want to save definition of Energy, You now have to explain a particle which causes "energy" to increase quadratically while momentum nicrease linearly...
Returners
1.8 / 5 (5) Oct 15, 2015
This "Glueball" doesn't explain that.

If I throw a baseball 20m/s the momentum is linear relationship to velocity. The kinetic energy is supposedly quadratic to velocity.

Why should some "magic energy particle" appear in a quadratic amount to the baseball, while momentum appears only linearly?

This is nonsense, but it is taught as gospel in physics class and text.

The collision of two objects...they keep the same total momentum, but when you re-calculate Ek it has changed. Standard explaination is this is "heat waste" or "sound waves" made in the atmosphere, entropy, etc.

Problem is if the event happens in a vacuum, you neglect air resistance and everything else, the math still says it loses Ek while conserving momentum.

Returners
1.8 / 5 (5) Oct 15, 2015
Example:

10kg object moving 1m/s to the right. Momentum 10kgm/s. Ek=5kgjoules
1kg object moving 10m/s to the right hits the 10kg object and we assume they stick together. momentum 10kgm/s. Ek =50joules

total Ek = 55joules

Now couple strange characteristics before we continue the example. How does the Ek differ so much between the two objects, even as they have the same momentum? What PARTICLE in the SM facilitates that?

So they hit one another and stick, momentum total is 20kgm/s. New velocity is momentum divided by total mass.

11kg @ 1.8181m/s = ~20kgm/s

Ek = (1/2)mv^2 = 18.18joules

55joules - 18.18joules = 36.81joules

We lost 36.81joules, but kept the same momentum.

Air resistance has nothing to do with it.

Where did the Joules go, and why the hell can they change while momentum doesn't change?

Radiative heat transfer requires photons, and photons have MOMENTUM, which would have to change the momentum of the two objects in order to conserve...
Returners
1.8 / 5 (5) Oct 15, 2015
So the textbook example produces nonsense, because there is no such interaction in reality.

Photons (such as infrared) supposedly have both "energy" and "momentum", so a photon can't deliver (or remove) one without the other.

So if the "Joules"("energy") went into heat, then the combined momentum of the two objects can't be the same...because photons are needed to move "joules" in the form of "heat" and in order to conserve momentum you would have to subtract the photons' momentum from the objects..and since the combined pair of objects is not symetrical (10kg vs 1kg) the heat would not radiate symetrically, so the momentum of the combined pair of objects must be different.

moreover, you still have the problem of linear momentum change vs quadratic "energy" change...Which I don't see a PARTICLE in the SM to facilitate that...
Returners
1.8 / 5 (5) Oct 15, 2015
And in addition to this, nobody that I've seen in physics even talks about this. What particle provides quadratic "energy" to an object?

This "Glueball" could apparently provide linear momentum to an object, but by textbook physics that automatically should make energy go up quadratically.

The problem is I just proved the textbook physics says you can literally remove most of the kinetic energy from a pair of objects without significantly changing their momentum....

So what the hell kind of particle does that? Removing the "Glueballs" (or something like them) for example would not do that.
Benni
3 / 5 (2) Oct 15, 2015
@Returners,

I'm curious, do you view Mass & Energy as being exactly the same thing as Einstein did in Special Relativity? Go back to my analogy of H2O & the Water/Ice comparison. Water & Ice are two different states of exactly the same thing.

If in Special Relativity you do not see the absence of distinction Einstein made between Energy & Mass, then SR will never make sense to you, or to anyone else. The problem you are having is the same problem non-science aficionados have with the science of Special Relativity, they simply do not comprehend why Einstein makes no distinction between MASS & ENERGY in that the two are different states of exactly the same thing, just like the water & ice comparison.
antialias_physorg
3.7 / 5 (9) Oct 19, 2015
Mathematics has gone from politely rediculous to completely insane.

Nope. People who think that reality must be explainable by their intuition (or that all concepts that reality rests on must be intuitively understandable) are insane.

You are taking labels that physicists use in a very precise way (mass, energy, particle, ....) and try to intuit from them using your everyday (read: not well defined/fuzzy) understanding of what these concepts mean.
It is not surprising that you get confused by this. Physics and math have gone beyond the "this is trivial" stage where anyone off the street without any kind of education could understand (or contribute).
That's the effect of several centuries of hard work that builds on top of one another has. If you want to be in on it you have to study it in detail. Then you will see that all those things you decry as 'insane' are actually the most sensible things we know of (i.e. the things that fit reality best).

bluehigh
2.6 / 5 (5) Oct 19, 2015
Anti_Thinking is dribbling nonsense yet again. The senile old bastard can't accept that when a result is counter common sense or simply nonsense then the method used to derive the result is flawed. All those years at the academy wasted on his lesser mind.

docile
Oct 19, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Mimath224
5 / 5 (1) Oct 19, 2015
@antialias_physorg Ha! I think someone is trying to 'wind you up'. Oh, I think the odd flare of intuition (hunch) comes off well but most of the time trying to work out reality takes just damned hard work. Whether one is mainstream or not both camps use maths to calculate this and that. Some scientist argue that math is very fundamental to the universe while others consider it be to a highly efficient abstract invention. I think I'd put myself in the latter. I don't where you place yourself but I think that anyone who relies totally on so called 'common sense' is either not telling the truth or a fool. I'm with you on this one.
bluehigh
3 / 5 (6) Oct 19, 2015
So, when your math or experimental procedure provides nonsensical results, you claim the evidence is counterintuitive but factual. As opposed to reassessing your process to understand the illogical outcome. That's beyond insane. You are an evil liar.
antialias_physorg
3 / 5 (6) Oct 19, 2015
Some scientist argue that math is very fundamental to the universe while others consider it be to a highly efficient abstract invention. I think I'd put myself in the latter.

I can understand the latter stance, but I'm more in the former camp. Not in the way that I think math is a fundamental 'particle', but the notion that it can be applied to all things in this universe which are related to one another (in any way..I.e. it meshes with any truly fundamental thing that there might be on a 1:1 basis).
Only totally unrelated concepts/entities cannot be handled by math - and totally unrelated entities exist, by definition, in different universes.

And we need to keep in mind that math isn't something static. It is developed, too, as the need arises. At its most basic math is "what information can I get about X when I have information about Y". As long as we accept that everything isn't just random (which IS a possibility -however small!) then math will always be applicable.
docile
Oct 19, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
docile
Oct 19, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.