What are quarks made of?

Discussion in 'Pseudoscience' started by Magical Realist, Aug 27, 2013.

  1. Maxila Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    156
    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: Aug 26, 2015
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Atomsz Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    264
    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.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Daecon Kiwi fruit Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,133
    Why do you think that?
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Maxila Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    156
    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
     
  8. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,703
    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.
     
  9. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,703
    'Littlest' quark-gluon plasma revealed by physicists using Large Hadron Collider
    September 3, 2015

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    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
     
  10. Atomsz Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    264
    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: Sep 5, 2015
  11. Atomsz Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    264
    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: Sep 5, 2015
  12. Atomsz Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    264
    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: Sep 5, 2015
  13. rpenner Fully Wired Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,833
    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!
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 5, 2015
  14. Atomsz Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    264
    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.
     
  15. Atomsz Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    264
    Furthermore incorrect, carbon and iron don't have the same gravitational acceleration!
     
  16. Daecon Kiwi fruit Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,133
    Why do you think that?
     
  17. Atomsz Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    264
    Rpenner, you spread a lot of scientific incorrect statements.
     
    Last edited: Sep 4, 2015
  18. Atomsz Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    264
    See the lecture



    But you have to understand German.
     
  19. Daecon Kiwi fruit Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,133
    I don't need to understand German, I just need to understand science.

    Which is something that you obviously don't.
     
  20. Atomsz Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    264
    Congratulation, you just need to understand science!
     
  21. origin In a democracy you deserve the leaders you elect. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,578
    why is this buffoon allowed to post this garbage in the science section?
     
  22. Atomsz Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    264
    why did you not answered the question what are the fundamental principles of physics?
     
  23. origin In a democracy you deserve the leaders you elect. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,578
    Why don't you learn some physics?
     

Share This Page