Sub Structure of the Subatomics, Particle Group Types Organized by Mass


One of the continual efforts of physics is that of organizing all the particles, what is often simply referred to as "the particle zoo". For this task, logic and math are the main tools, and the challenge is then organizing all those particles in the most efficient manner. Observed physical qualities are used to group similar particles, and names are given to the group. Over time, many such groups have appeared, such as Bosons, Fermions, Hadrons, Baryons, Mesons, Leptons, Quarks, and So-and-so-ons, just to name some. What then are the patterns within this system, if any?

During my studies I have seen different charts and visual representations attempting to organize all the subatomic particles and variants, many of which are composite subatomics made from each other, and naturally some graphics are better than others. However, 2 things stand out to me when viewing these charts. One, is that there is no overall, simplified "periodic table of the subatomics" reaching widespread standardized acceptance, and two, is that none of the charts seem to show the relation of the groups to the masses of the particles within those groups. At least, not in visuals that I've seen, and not in the manner shown above. So what is the picture above showing exactly?

In the early 20th century, it was observed that at the highest level, all particles seemed to come in one of 2 flavors, either Fermions, with 1/2 integer angular momentum, or Bosons, with whole integer angular momentum. Both types have fundamental particles and composite particles. The composite particles of both types are lumped together under the heading Hadrons, and are separated by whether they have an even or odd number of quarks, which in turn decides if they are a Boson-Hadron or Fermion-Hadron. This is shown in the upper right, and generally splits the particles into 4 groups from left to right; the fundamental Bosons, the composite Bosons (Mesons), the composite Fermions (Baryons), and the fundamental Fermions (Leptons and Quarks).

It is then convenient to organize the particles first by half or whole angular momentum, then by fundamental or composite, and if composite, then by having an even or odd number of constituents. Indeed this is useful, however, at that point, what does it tell about the nature or purpose of those particles? For comparison, consider the periodic table. The table of elements ends up being organized by atomic mass and radius for a given row, and leads to other macro scale physical qualities being observed and organized by column or area within the chart. The 4-group splitting of the subatomics does not on it's own lead to or display such sub structure.

Out of curiosity, I decided to plot all of the subatomics by their mass, to look for patterns in the graph. While doing so, I realized the particles' masses within the 4 groups had ranges. This was not something, I had seen discussed, in and of itself, and figured it useful for finding patterns within the nature of the subatomic particles, and a likely step in attempting to create a chart of subatomics more akin to the periodic table. The bottom part of the picture shows these ranges of masses plotted on a log scale, and the numbers in the upper left show the masses of the particles at group transitions. The colors are associated with the corresponding group underlined in the 4-group split above. Red is fundamental Bosons, Blue is fundamental Fermions, Orange is Mesons, and yellow is Baryons.

So as it turns out, there is an interesting nesting of the 4 particle type groups within each other, according to their masses. Fundamental Bosons can take the entire range of mass, followed by leptons and quarks, then Mesons which can only take a small range, and finally Baryons with the strictest range. In the future, I would like to explore this further, and try to develop a subatomics chart based on this observation. If anyone has seen such a chart or related information, I'd be interested to see it, or if anyone continues this further or wishes to develop the concept, let me know.

a)      Atoms are the starting point of chemistry and are on the nano-scale.  Chemistry does not exist inside the atom.  Even though pure unadulterated nanotechnology would be the at will movement and exact placement of any desired individual atom from a physical perspective, large strides can be made by considering en-masse nano reorganization at the elemental level from a chemical perspective.  Say for example I want a roast beef sandwich with au jus to materialize in front of me.  Well in my nano machine of course.  Then I am going to need a ready supply of all the elements in said food. 

b)      In the case of food I’ll most likely need a bunch of organic chemistry atoms such as carbon, oxygen, hydrogen, nitrogen, and what not.  However there are only about 80 natural non radioactive elements so why not have a ready supply of whatever you need.  Boron, lithium, chlorine, iodine, or whatever.  Well, all the elements we need already exist in abundance in the things we already have.  So an efficient question might be to ask, what is the simplest method of breaking down everything we have, organizing it to their corresponding groups, and reassembling where needed.  An 80-90% “boiling point” oven could solve the first two stages of the task; breaking down and organization.

c)      “Boiling Point” refers to the concept of the ovens functionality.  In solid and liquid forms matter is not usually at the individual nano atomic level but at the micro molecular level.  However, as higher and higher energy gases, most substances rapidly approach smaller molecules and continue to breakdown towards free atoms.  At a high enough temperature one reaches plasma.  80-90% of substances turn to gas above 10,000 degrees.  At these energies a gas easily mixes to homogeneity, so we have solved step one of breaking stuff down.  Step two, sorting the stuff, is as easy as letting the oven cool slowly.  This should allow layers of like materials to sort out. 

d)     The layers will be striated and mostly homogeneous.  The oven would be a closed oven; no gas is considered pollution – just something waiting to be reorganized.  There are 3 points worth mentioning about this idea.  One, is that this process has not been tested fully by any information I have been able to find.  We must see what settles out at different temperatures with both a natural mix (representing real landfill input) and a pure elemental mix consisting all natural elements in abundance (so no one stoichiometric reaction equation becomes saturated).  Two, is that there will still be byproducts from this process that need further processing, however, these will be “organized” byproduct that can be easily transferred to a next process.  Furthermore, the disorganization of the system from initial product to settled stage has decreased by almost 100%.  And three, until recently I had not found anyone doing anything remotely like this, even though it is a simple idea, but have now found Startech on Feb 2005.  Startech has created a plasma oven version that currently runs at 35,000 degrees, has a diverse – but still limited input, and a product specific output of about 6 substances as best as I can tell. 

e)      The Startech oven is a good start, but it may still be slightly too complicated.  I think a similar result could be reached at lower temps and that a different cooling process should be applied.  They cool quickly to avoid the formation of dioxins and flavins.  However, with a different process these might form differently or not at all.  A slow cool would seem better to me.  In either case, I don’t see these as a waste products but rather just something else to be sorted.  For example, the dioxins if still a problem in that form would go on to stage 2 processing.  The development of these 2nd stages, and subsequent stages, would be a source of developmental growth within the field.   

  • Facebook

© 2017- 2020 by Thoughtfarm. Proudly created with