What are quarks made of?

Is this really what Sciforums is about? Why is there even Alternative Theories and Pseudoscience when this is becoming the norm for even Physics &Math?
 
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
Click to expand...
Nuclear physics is the physics of nuclei -- the positively charged centers of atoms, possessing most of the atoms' mass and composed of protons and neutrons. Your claim that there are two types of neutrons, a stable neutron found only in nuclei with constituents of one proton and one electron while free neutrons consist of a proton, two electrons and one positron is nonsensical, in that it violations conservation of angular momentum (neutrons would be bosons, not fermions if your model were true), is contradicted by the stability of the ground state of hydrogen which does not convert to "stable neutrons", is contradicted by deep elastic scattering where electrons and protons are brought together very fast and no evidence that electrons and protons have a new force between them but rather plenty of evidence that the proton is composite, and doesn't explain the specifics of neutron decay (why decay of neutrons happens without gamma radiation and with missing momentum and energy when only electromagnetism-related particles are considered).
Atomsz said:
Furthermore incorrect, carbon and iron don't have the same gravitational acceleration!
Click to expand...
Please see Figure 1 from section 2.1.1 of http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2014-4/
Because I have pointed you at this review article before and you have not acknowledged it, I present an excerpt:
wep.png

Figure 1: Selected tests of the weak equivalence principle, showing bounds on η, which measures fractional difference in acceleration of different materials or bodies. The free-fall and Eöt-Wash experiments were originally performed to search for a fifth force (green region, representing many experiments). The blue band shows evolving bounds on η for gravitating bodies from lunar laser ranging (LLR).
Click to expand...
So for over 100 years, people have attempted to measure a difference in the gravitation acceleration of different elements, and always failed, even as their experiments got more precise over time.
Because this is a review article, it summarizes hundreds of scientific reports, including reference 402:
http://arxiv.org/abs/1207.2442 Torsion-balance tests of the weak equivalence principle
In this paper both Be-Al and Be-Ti pairs were checked for differences in gravitational acceleration. Within experimental errors, no difference was found.
(They probably didn't use Fe because it is ferromagnetic, but other researchers used Pb.)
Therefore you have made an extraordinary factual claim (gravitational acceleration is composition dependent) without any scientific support while I have an ordinary factual claim (one made since the days of Galileo) and provided modern scientific support for it.
Atomsz said:
Rpenner, you spread a lot of scientific incorrect statements.
Click to expand...
You would have been hard pressed to address this to a poster on this forum and have this statement be less true.
 
Atomsz said:
Yes, I have an other hypothesis about fundamental particles,
Click to expand...
Yes, you have an hypothesis, nothing more, nothing less.
Atomsz said:
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...

Total delusions on your part, and at least finally moved to where it should be.
Quarks have been observed but not in isolation as yet.
As usual,if you had anything of substance, you would not be here, spouting your nonsense.
 
Atomsz said:
Rpenner, you spread a lot of scientific incorrect statements.
Click to expand...
Please select one scientific incorrect statement that rpenner has made and demonstrate for us why it is incorrect.
 
Last edited:
I believe quarks are made of stardust. The goal of atomic ionization is to plant the seeds of purpose rather than illusion. Life is the growth of stardust, and of us.
 
Atomsz said:
Rpenner, you spread a lot of scientific incorrect statements.
Click to expand...
rpenner said:
You would have been hard pressed to address this to a poster on this forum and have this statement be less true.
Click to expand...
James R said:
Please selection one scientific incorrect statement that rpenner has made and demonstrate for us why it is incorrect.
Click to expand...
Nothing is to be gained from ignoring a request from the Forum staff, Atomsz.
 
AlphaNumeric said:
This does not necessarily prove they are made of light, only that they are capable of being converted into other particles and that they have anti-particle versions. The fact the Standard Model does not view them as made of light and yet can accurately predict all of their as yet observed behaviours illustrates that there exist viable interpretations of the data in contradiction to your claim, including said annihilations. As such your assertion is unjustified, as id your attempt to use said annihilations as sufficient justification for the assertion.

If we collide particles with their anti-particles at low energies then we typically get photons. However, sufficiently high collisions leads to Z particle production. And by that I don't mean the $$q+\bar{q} \to \gamma + \gamma \to \textrm{stuff}$$ which is the mechanism by which quark jets are formed by electron/positron collisions (ie they need an intermediate set of particles), I mean that the particles produced are Zs and not photons. This is because Z particles have all the same properties as photons other than having mass, namely all their quantum numbers are the same.

By your logic can we conclude electrons, positrons, quarks etc contain Z particles too? If not and somehow the energy of the collision allows for a modification of what comes out then you have the added problem of the fact Zs do not interact directly with photons, necessitating another intermediate state in the annihilation process. All of these would require quite explicit modelling in order to determine whether or not such a notion is consistent with all observed data, much as models for Zs, Ws, the heavier quarks, the Higgs and proposed GUT particles all must crunch through the implications of the processes they allow or disallow to see what the precise impact on most easily observed decay products would be.

Given that no model which views the electron or quarks as bound states of photons has yet been able to come even remotely close to correctly modelling all of the relevant particle physics data it would be remiss of you to present what are as yet very under developed and experimentally unjustified assertions as if they are justified. And given that is precisely how you've failed to qualify your assertion you're not exactly being open and honest.

No, that is your interpretation of things, based on extremely under developed tentative ideas developed by others which you have decided to incorporate into your claims in a qualitative way.

This superficial description of yours is without quantitative basis within your own 'work' and the few papers putting forth this idea a number of years ago were not considered particularly note worthy by the community, nor do they provide significant link to experimental data. Given I repeatedly ask you to provide a single physical phenomenon your work can quantitative model in line with experimental data and you fail to answer that question each and every time I ask it I also conclude you haven't developed any quantitative specifics yourself either. Hence this assertion of yours is baseless.

As already stated, given that the Standard Model does not view things as you describe, ie you're putting forth your own views, it is dishonest of you to state such things without a qualifier such as "In my opinion..." or "In my attempt to understand particle physics....". I generally qualify my responses with "According to the Standard Model...." or "In general relativity...", which is making it clear what is being said is through the lens of a particular model, not undeniable fact known directly from experiment.

According to the Standard Model it is because the binding strength between quarks is sufficiently strong that to pull quarks enough distance apart from one another that they could be considered 'isolated' provides the system with enough energy to manifest more quarks, thus once again combining them into bound states. Alternative ideas are in existence but as yet none of them have been able to actually model such particle dynamics in a way consistent with experiment to the massive extent achieved by the Standard Model.

Notice how I'm not saying the SM is true and quarks are necessarily fundamental. Instead I'm saying that according to the only model thus far developed capable of actually modelling the dynamics of the systems in question they are viewed as fundamental.

Farsight, in future you are to qualify any posts or claims or assertions which come from your pet theory with "In my opinion..." or something of that form. You should make it clear when you are giving everyone your own 2 cents on a subject and when you're simply passing on the current mainstream view. Given your ignorance of the current mainstream view in many domains of science I'd suggest you be very precise in what you say. If you cannot abide by this and continue to present your own pseudo-scientific fringe theory.... no, it's not even a theory, it's qualitative arm waving, without making it clear you're not talking about the current mainstream view then you'll be given a warning or holiday, depending on the severity.

If the thread starter wishes to here Farsight's about quarks then I suggest they both go to the fringe section of the forum and have a discussion there. I would point out to the thread starter that Farsight has no working understanding of any domain of physics to even undergraduate level, he has no hands on experience with experimental data, he has no working model of any physical phenomenon and yet he has repeatedly declared himself a world expert in a number of domains and that his work is worthy of multiple Nobel Prizes. If that's someone whose thoughts you'd like to hear about things he has no experience or understanding of, knock yourself out. Farsight has been given plenty of opportunities to provide justification for his claims, all of which he has failed to do. As such his work is taken to be pseudo-scientific qualitative arm waving and has no place within this section of the forum. Farsight, when you can provide sound quantitative modelling connecting your claims to reality and can answer relevant direct questions about your work then you can post it in this forum. I could be really strict and say not until you have it published in a reputable peer reviewed journal but I'm a generous guy.
Click to expand...

"If we collide particles with their anti-particles at low energies then we typically get photons." We get electromagnetic radiations AND "mass-less" neutrinos which are build of mass carried particles. We don't get photons!

"Notice how I'm not saying the SM is true and quarks are necessarily fundamental. Instead I'm saying that according to the only model thus far developed capable of actually modelling the dynamics of the systems in question they are viewed as fundamental." It is actually modelling the dynamics, dynamics and of what? Allow me laughing.
 
Last edited:
Atomsz said:
"If we collide particles with their anti-particles at low energies then we typically get photons." We get electromagnetic radiations AND "mass-less" neutrinos which are build of mass carried particles. We don't get photons!
Click to expand...
No, you don't get neutrinos in an electromagnetic annihilation.

Furthermore, we've known what you get from positron-electron annihilation since the 1930's. Here's the Nobel speech for 1936:

Dr. Anderson now pursued his investigations, introduced certain improvements of the equipment and after having carried out verifying experiments and new measurements he was able to furnish, in the summer of 1932, clear evidence of the existence of the positive electron. ... Dr. Anderson found that the gamma radiation from a radioactive substance containing thorium could release, by interaction, positive as well as negative electrons. The peculiar thing is that then there is often formed a twin pair of electrons consisting of one positive and one negative electron. In this case particles are thus created by the influence of pure radiation energy. It has likewise been found that a positive and a negative particle disappear when united, the only trace left being radiation passing away in every direction.
Click to expand...
http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1936/press.html
 
Atomsz said:
Th stable elementary particles can not be created nor annihilated!
Click to expand...
Überwertige Ideen sind eine gravierende Denkstörung, die Wahngedanken ähnelt, jedoch nicht so ausgeprägt ich-synton und unveränderbar (gewiss) ist wie diese. Häufig gehen überwertige Ideen mit anderen Denkstörungen einher (z. B. Perseveration) und können schwere Störungen der sozialen Beziehungen zur Folge haben.
Click to expand...
Old evidence doesn't change your mind. New evidence doesn't change your mind. Logical arguments don't change your mind. Math doesn't change your mind. Yet you present no evidence, logical arguments or math that favors your idea over those of every physicist since Galileo. Those are extraordinary claims that you make, and as Marcello Truzzi said, “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof”. You are not demonstrating your claims are valid ones. That classifies you as a pseudoscientist, not someone who is going to change science.

You are failing to hold up your responsibilities in this conversation. You are not arguing against the position I hold about the behavior of reality; you simply contradict my evidence-based conclusions without argument or evidence. This does not give you the appearance of a smart person or a person who values rational conversation.

You also have ignored the direction of staff in post #225 to support your hastily-made claim about my connection to science.
 
Atomsz said:
Th[e] stable elementary particles can not be created nor annihilated!
Click to expand...
Two of the particles that you call stable, the electron and positron for instance, can be created and annihilated. This is a well known phenomena.

Ignoring reality is little more than fantasy and a waste of your time and ours. You are starting to seem rather pathetic.
 
origin said:
Two of the particles that you call stable, the electron and positron for instance, can be created and annihilated. This is a well known phenomena.

Ignoring reality is little more than fantasy and a waste of your time and ours. You are starting to seem rather pathetic.
Click to expand...
Neither the creation, nor the annihilation of electron and positron and of proton and elton occur in Nature.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top