Please explain the 'tubes' that connect the quarks

The fabric of space. The vacuum. There is no underlying explanation for it so far.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I gave an analogy the questioner could understand. Note the word "artefact" in the extract above. This is the important point, and you should concede it instead of promoting the fiction that gluons are real particles zipping around inside a proton, and point particles to boot. Look at what you said in post #3:

"Photons (carriers of the electromagnetic force) don't have electromagnetic charge. In contrast, gluons (carriers of the chromodynamic force) do have chromodynamic charge..."

These "messenger particles" are virtual particles, not real particles. They are not transient real particles that can travel faster than light or convey negative energy, or drive a coach and horses through the laws of physics.

It's a mathematical technique, rpenner. It doesn't turn an artefact into something real.

Re hydrogen atoms don't twinkle:

But hydrogen atoms still don't twinkle. And magnets don't shine either. It's that simple, rpenner. I'm authority enough to tell you that. I take no issue with the quantization of action, but remember that E=hf applies to a real photon which participates in gamma-gamma pair production to create an electron and a positron whereafter the virtual photons said to mediate their interaction are artefacts. And don't forget that the Unruh effect has been challenged in papers such as this: http://arxiv.org/abs/1301.6650

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

It's a fairy tale. Virtual photons are artefacts, they aren't transient real particles that pop in and out of existence. Check out the Near and far field on wikipedia. The near field is the region very close to a radio emitter. It's perfectly real. Now see this:

"Quantum field theory view
In the quantum view of electromagnetic interactions, far-field effects are manifestations of real photons, whereas near-field effects are due to a mixture of real and virtual photons. Virtual photons composing near-field fluctuations and signals, have effects that are of far shorter range than those of real photons".

But the near field is not some "twinkling" region. Instead it's a standing-field region, which is also called the evanescent wave. That's a standing wave. See the abstract of Evanescent Waves in Quantum Electrodynamics with Unquantized Sources dating from 1973:

"Evanescent waves are studied for a free field satisfying the Helmholtz equation and the results are employed in studying the nature of these waves in the case of a quantized electromagnetic field interacting with a given external source. The identity of these evanescent waves with virtual photons is established, and the result is used to analyze the field due to a uniformly moving charge distribution."

Have a look at articles concerning standing wave and hydrogen atom. Also look at the quantum tunnelling article and search it for the word evanescent. The point to note is that there's no real difference between a standing wave and a field. In gamma-gamma pair production you start off with two +511keV photons. They have an E=hf wave nature, there's no point particle in the middle, just as there's no point-particle in a photon with a wavelength of 1500m. After pair production you end up with an electron and a positron. They each have their standing field, and again, there is no point-particle in the middle. The electron's field is part of what it is. In fact, it is what it is. And at all times during and after this pair production, virtual particles were only ever artefacts. You can diffract an electron, the wave nature of matter is a definite. Then if the electron and positron annihilate, you've got two 511keV photons. Two E=hf waves and no standing fields, and no little chargeless specks left over.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

C'mon Farsight. I'm not kidding.

But I'm not gonna shell out £35.37 for one of the used copies on Amazon.

 

My naive reading of this is that, taken together, all these "field" type "values at every point in space" effectively describe an "absolute" energy-space points extent we call the Quantum vacuum (or Fields vacuum if one prefers) otherwise called "space", doesn't it? Since the collection of "fields" is ubiquitous and always there, and only its "perturbations" represent a contrasting state "feature" which arise in and revert back to this fields point distribution you describe?

 

I want to know about these gluons which themselves are supposed to have color charge and generate gluons themselves according to those videos. Anyone know any more?

 

This page is quite handy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_charge

 

Iwishyoulovedme: Gluons generate more gluons? I missed that. Can you give me a link to it?

Re eram's link above, it talks about QCD and "color" charge. You can see mention of that on the Wikipedia proton. See the picture on the right, where one quark is shown as blue, another red, and another green. IMHO QCD is like QED in that it "works", but the usual description of what's actually going on under the mathematics isn't very good. Take a look at this.

 

youtube.com/watch?v=ZYPem05vpS4&list=PL74025093AD4E64DC that is the link. The relevant point starts at time index 0 minutes 35 seconds.

 

That's difficult, since the stuff we're talking about is really tiny.

It's terribly ironic, building the world's largest machines to investigate the world's smallest objects.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I think it's only superficially similar.

Anyway, just check out the mathematical jargon:

It doesn't take a genius to see that the trefoil knot is a single loop, hence making it impossible to untie.

 

Unlike photons, which have no electric charge, gluons have color charge. This is why QCD is so much more difficult.

 

iwishyoulovedme: OK I saw it. It does at least make it clear they're virtual, and at least the depiction isn't some bean-bag with an elastic skin which is additional to the quarks and gluons.

eram: yes, you can't untie it. You have to break it.

 

Hi Farsight,

Are we to assume your knowledge and understanding of topological quantum field theory has dissolved since you last brought up the subject? I find it difficult to believe you'd outright refuse to share your expertise with those on this forum who are keen to learn.

So if I make the thread would you be willing to get us started on the subject?

 

No and no. You asked me how I knew TQFT wasn't gibberish, and I told you. Then I said why don't you give me your explanation of how gamma-gamma pair production works, and I'll give you an object lesson in gibberish. You appear to have declined to do so.

Now please, try to join in the conversation instead of trying to spoil it.

 

Formal debate?

 

Your excuse in #20 is pretty poor.

And Guest254 has already replied to it. So far you haven't responded to that.

He also didn't claim to be knowledgeable about two-photon physics, though he could still reply.

 

Again Farsight, that's not fair. I responded to your question (here) and said I'd be more than happy to tell you the (little) I know of photon-photon scattering. But I asked that in return you share your knowledge and wisdom when it comes to the mind-shatteringly complicated topic of topological quantum field theory. You seem to be avoiding this.

 

Minimal Tube = Triangle in Motion

Tubes are at a minimum a partial enclosure of space and the minimal tube is a 2D triangle ergo three corners or three angles or three viewpoints or and integrated set of three lines-of interrelationship that enclose an area of space.

If the 2D triangle moves forward over time, we may say that it defines tubular pattern.

Or, if we say that the if the triangle spins left, or righ,t as it moves forward over time--- at trajectory ---it defines a tubular pattern.

If the 2D triangle, spins left, or right and expands or contracts, as it moves forward over time, it defines and irregular tubular pattern and could perhaps be said to have a wavy pattern.

If the 2D triangle, spins left, or right, expands-contracts and has some of it oscillating between being in forward motion and other(s0 in backward motion as its overall trajectory is forward, over time, then we may say that we have an irratic and wavy tubular pattern.

In all of the above scenarios the area or virtual volume being defined by the motion of the triangle has no body ergo is no solidity.

I believe, that, for this minimal scenario of a tubular pattern to have a solid-like body, the triangle needs a 4th corner inside the area it encloses, and this 4th viewpoint inherent defines four nodal-vertexial events and 9 corners/viewpoints/angles ergo a subdivided triangle with nuclear nodal-vertexial event.

In this latter 4 nodal vertexial event, moving forward of time, we now have a tube with a body if not body that has and axis or spine.

A string is solid tube i.e. a tube with a body.

r6