What are quarks made of?

Adrian Commander said:
Infinity goes both ways, you can double the size of any size, or you can half the size of any size..?

A quark is pretty much the size of the universe, when you apply infinite 'measurements'
Click to expand...

While the statement about infinity is correct, I don’t see how it offers any insight as to a quarks' size? Consider there are known forces that affect quarks like electromagnetic, strong, weak, and gravity, those effects change with distance. It stands to reason that a quark likely has a finite size.
 
Last edited:
Maxila said:
While the statement about infinity is correct, I don’t see how it offers any insight as to a quarks' size? Consider there are known forces that affect quarks like electromagnetic, strong, weak, and gravity, those effects change with distance. It stands to reason that a quark likely has a finite size.
Click to expand...
Quarks do not exist in Nature! The quark-theory is a wrong constructed trial and is not conform with any experimental observations. The creation of the quark model founds on the fact that the physicist do not know how to describe Nature in very small reagion of space and time.
 
Atomsz said:
Quarks do not exist in Nature! The quark-theory is a wrong constructed trial and is not conform with any experimental observations. The creation of the quark model founds on the fact that the physicist do not know how to describe Nature in very small reagion of space and time.
Click to expand...

I'm with Daecon in wanting to know why you've come to that conclusion? This is a good place to quote something I liked that was written by rpenner a little earlier:

http://www.sciforums.com/threads/co...root-of-a-given-length-b.152544/#post-3325843
Physics isn't about the nature of reality -- Physics is about the behavior of phenomena in reality. Because that's all we can do is poke reality and see how it jumps -- that type of inquiry will never tell you what reality is, only how it behaves. We have very good mathematical models of how it will behave in all sorts of circumstances, but the map is not the territory.
Click to expand...
 
Atomsz said:
Quarks do not exist in Nature! The quark-theory is a wrong constructed trial and is not conform with any experimental observations. The creation of the quark model founds on the fact that the physicist do not know how to describe Nature in very small reagion of space and time.
Click to expand...
Do you have any evidence of what you state?
I don't believe you have, which makes you wrong.
Quarks are a fundamental particle that go to make up protons and neutrons.
As yet [as far as I know] they have not been seen in isolation.
Quarks are categorised by type Up, Down, Top, Bottom, Strange and Charmed.

Of course if you have some other hypothesis re fundamental particles, we do have an alternative section for you to discuss that in and undergo proper scientific critique.
 
'Littlest' quark-gluon plasma revealed by physicists using Large Hadron Collider
September 3, 2015

CMS detector at CERN's Large Hadron Collider. Credit: CERN
Researchers at the University of Kansas working with an international team at the Large Hadron Collider have produced quark-gluon plasma—a state of matter thought to have existed right at the birth of the universe—with fewer particles than previously thought possible.



Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2015-09-littlest-quark-gluon-plasma-revealed-physicists.html#jCp
 
paddoboy said:
Do you have any evidence of what you state?
I don't believe you have, which makes you wrong.
Quarks are a fundamental particle that go to make up protons and neutrons.
As yet [as far as I know] they have not been seen in isolation.
Quarks are categorised by type Up, Down, Top, Bottom, Strange and Charmed.

Of course if you have some other hypothesis re fundamental particles, we do have an alternative section for you to discuss that in and undergo proper scientific critique.
Click to expand...

Yes, I have an other hypothesis about fundamental particles, see [link removed]. Futhermore, I have investigated the prognoses of the quark model and the experimental observations, specially the prognoses for masses, for life times of instable particles and for cross section in scattering experiments. The experimental observation are wide outside the prognoses of the quark model. The consequence is that the particles are not composed by quarks. Forthermore, quarks have never been observed in scattering processes. The Large Hadron Collider did not have produced quark-gluon plasma!

I am wondering why the quarks appear in each text books of physics as fundamental particles. Proper scientific critique with quarks is adequate everywhere, not only in an alternative section.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Atomsz said:
Yes, I have an other hypothesis about fundamental particles, see www.atomsz.com. Futhermore, I have investigated the prognoses of the quark model and the experimental observations, specially the prognoses for masses, for life times of instable particles and for cross section in scattering experiments. The experimental observation are wide outside the prognoses of the quark model. The consequence is that the particles are not composed by quarks. Forthermore, quarks have never been observed in scattering processes. The Large Hadron Collider did not have produced quark-gluon plasma!

I am wondering why the quarks appear in each text books of physics as fundamental particles. Proper scientific critique with quarks is adequate everywhere, not only in an alternative section.
Click to expand...

Sándor Katz calculated the mass difference between mass of instable neutron and proton

http://arxiv.org/abs/1406.4088

He and his coworker performed lattice quantum-chromodynamics and quantum-electrodynamics computations with four nondegenerate Wilson fermion flavors and computed the neutron-proton mass-splitting.

I am wondering because the instable neutron is composed of one proton (P), of two electrons (e) and one positron (p) with the decay

N = (P,e,p,e) -> P + e + (e,p) = proton + electron + electron-neutrino.

Both masses, the inertial and the gravitational mass of the instable neutron can be computed by the elementary masses me and mP, see [link removed]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Atomsz said:
Sándor Katz calculated the mass difference between mass of instable neutron and proton

http://arxiv.org/abs/1406.4088

He and his coworker performed lattice quantum-chromodynamics and quantum-electrodynamics computations with four nondegenerate Wilson fermion flavors and computed the neutron-proton mass-splitting.

I am wondering because the instable neutron is composed of one proton (P), of two electrons (e) and one positron (p) with the decay

N = (P,e,p,e) -> P + e + (e,p) = proton + electron + electron-neutrino.

Both masses, the inertial and the gravitational mass of the instable neutron can be computed by the elementary masses me and mP, see www.atomsz.com.
Click to expand...

The electron-neutrino is a bound state of one electron and one positron, this particle is 0.783 10^-13 cm large. The electron and positron do not annihilate each other at their contact, see [link removed]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Atomsz said:
I am wondering because the instable neutron is composed of one proton (P), of two electrons (e) and one positron (p) with the decay
Click to expand...
Incorrect. The very paper you cite uses a model where neither the proton nor the neutron are fundamental particles and correctly calculates the mass between them, without resorting to including electrons. This paper then strongly validates the standard model of particle physics.

Atomsz said:
Both masses, the inertial and the gravitational mass of the instable neutron can be computed by the elementary masses me and mP,
Click to expand...
That is irrelevant since majority of neutrons we encounter are stable neutrons and neither the inertial mass or gravitational mass of carbon and iron are consistent with the masses of unstable neutrons, protons and electrons. Yet, mysteriously, modern experiments have show that carbon and iron have the same gravitational acceleration to at least 2 parts in $$10^{13}$$. These facts are known to any motivated high school student, so you have fallen behind the times.
Atomsz said:
see [link removed]
Click to expand...
Spam!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
rpenner said:
Incorrect. The very paper you cite uses a model where neither the proton nor the neutron are fundamental particles and correctly calculates the mass between them, without resorting to including electrons. This paper then strongly validates the standard model of particle physics.

That is irrelevant since majority of neutrons we encounter are stable neutrons and neither the inertial mass or gravitational mass of carbon and iron are consistent with the masses of unstable neutrons, protons and electrons. Yet, mysteriously, modern experiments have show that carbon and iron have the same gravitational acceleration to at least 2 parts in $$10^{13}$$. These facts are known to any motivated high school student, so you have fallen behind the times.
Spam!
Click to expand...

Incorrect! Stable neutrons are in nuclear physics unknown. But in Nature there exists. The stable neutron is composed of one proton and one electron

N0 = (P,e).

The gravitational mass of a stable neutron is

mg(N0) = mP - me.

The stable neutron is 0.702 10^-13 cm large, almost so large as the "mass-less" electron-neutrino 0.703 10^-13 cm.
 
Atomsz said:
Incorrect! Stable neutrons are in nuclear physics unknown. But in Nature there exists. The stable neutron is composed of one proton and one electron

N0 = (P,e).

The gravitational mass of a stable neutron is

mg(N0) = mP - me.

The stable neutron is 0.702 10^-13 cm large, almost so large as the "mass-less" electron-neutrino 0.703 10^-13 cm.
Click to expand...

Furthermore incorrect, carbon and iron don't have the same gravitational acceleration!
 
Atomsz said:
Incorrect! Stable neutrons are in nuclear physics unknown. But in Nature there exists. The stable neutron is composed of one proton and one electron

N0 = (P,e).

The gravitational mass of a stable neutron is

mg(N0) = mP - me.

The stable neutron is 0.702 10^-13 cm large, almost so large as the "mass-less" electron-neutrino 0.703 10^-13 cm.
Click to expand...

Rpenner, you spread a lot of scientific incorrect statements.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top