I don't know much about these little blighters. I do know they have a number of different flavours, up, down, strange, charm etc. I know they are like little balls of lightning - 98% energy fizzing away to themselves. They get glued together with gluons - with other bits and pieces to make protons etc. If anybody knows, I would be interested to find out a) how does this energy remain discreet b) what is the other 2% of its' mass, and 3) anything else that's interesting. Many thanks.
Ultra, look up "partons" and "the bag model", and note that we've never seen a free quark. They aren't what people generally think. They aren't little billiard-ball things trapped inside a proton. How best to describe them in simple terms? You know how you mentioned lightening? I don't know if you know, but you can conduct low-energy proton-antiproton annihilation, and the result is gamma photons, aka light in the wider sense. That isn't exactly lightening, but it's not far off: Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Imagine you've got lightening or light in the configuration below. As regards the bag model, imagine you're pulling at the loops - the opposing force increases with distance. Now trace around it from the bottom left and call out the crossing-over directions. They are up, up, and down. Ring any bells? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! You should also look up displacement current and Topological quantum field theory. These are rather making a comeback. There were a good couple of articles in the IoP PhysicsWorld magazine in September. This is the cover: Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
And I suppose you're drawing on your considerable familiarity with the relevant experiments when you make such a statement? Quantum field theory never said they were, the notion of 'little billiard balls' went out when quantum mechanics came in. You're 100 years behind the times. You do realise 'up' and 'down' are just arbitrary names, they do not mean the same as the 'up' and 'down' of spin alignments. If you're having to make such dubious lines of arguing you're really clutching at straws. I can't help but feel this is a none-too-subtle attempt to try to get people to think you're familiar with such things as topological quantum field theory. I find it funny that you suggest to people to read up on advanced topics when you've not even looked up the prerequisites of the prerequisites of those topics. I suggest you follow your own advice and start looking up actual quantitative physics, rather than trying to convince yourself reading pop science books makes you a competent scientist.
