Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics > #686547 > unrolled thread

Questions about quarks

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  Questions about quarks Brian Ghilliotti <zendorian9@gmail.com> - 2018-05-21 14:02 -0700
    Re: Questions about quarks Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-21 21:13 +0000
      Re: Questions about quarks john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-05-22 07:18 -0700
        Re: Questions about quarks Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-22 15:01 +0000
          Re: Questions about quarks john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-05-23 04:54 -0700
            Re: Questions about quarks Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-23 12:45 +0000
              Re: Questions about quarks john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-05-25 08:14 -0700
                Re: Questions about quarks Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-25 17:05 +0000
                  Re: Questions about quarks john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-05-25 10:29 -0700
                    Re: Questions about quarks Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-05-25 18:59 +0000
                    Re: Questions about quarks moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-05-25 19:00 +0000
                Re: Questions about quarks "reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2018-05-25 11:23 -0700
                  Re: Questions about quarks "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2018-05-25 15:56 -0700
        Re: Questions about quarks moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-05-22 16:13 +0000
          Re: Questions about quarks poraty149@gmail.com - 2018-05-22 16:21 -0700

#686547 — Questions about quarks

Within protons and neutrons, there exists three quarks “bound” to each other. For protons, this consists of two “up” quarks per one “down” quark. For neutrons, this consists of of two “down” quarks per one “up” quark. What would happen if one were to successfully break the bands of either type of quark grouping just described? Is it possible? Brian Ghilliotti

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#686548

Brian Ghilliotti <zendorian9@gmail.com> wrote:
> Within protons and neutrons, there exists three quarks “bound” to each
> other. For protons, this consists of two “up” quarks per one “down”
> quark. For neutrons, this consists of of two “down” quarks per one “up”
> quark. What would happen if one were to successfully break the bands of
> either type of quark grouping just described? Is it possible? Brian Ghilliotti
> 

As long as you end up with a “colorless” combination, it’s fine. Here
“color” refers to QCD charge. There is for example a baryon with three up
quarks, and another with three down quarks. There is also a meson with an
up and an anti-up. There are no particles with just one quark or, say, two
up quarks, because that can’t be made colorless. 

-- 
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#686626

Odd
“
- show quoted text -
As long as you end up with a “colorless” combination, it’s fine. Here 
“color” refers to QCD charge. There is for example a baryon with three up 
quarks, and another with three down quarks. There is also a meson with an 
up and an anti-up. There are no particles with just one quark or, say, two 
up quarks, because that can’t be made colorless. 

-- ”
Nice.
But electrons are not in motion because then the moving charge would radiate- right?
That’s a homework woodwork question.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#686631

john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> wrote:
> Odd
> “
> - show quoted text -
> As long as you end up with a “colorless” combination, it’s fine. Here 
> “color” refers to QCD charge. There is for example a baryon with three up 
> quarks, and another with three down quarks. There is also a meson with an 
> up and an anti-up. There are no particles with just one quark or, say, two 
> up quarks, because that can’t be made colorless. 
> 
> -- ”
> Nice.
> But electrons are not in motion because then the moving charge would radiate- right?
> That’s a homework woodwork question.
> 

Discussed before. Electrons have kinetic energy and no trajectory. I know
you try to shove those two statements into your familiar world and it
breaks your head and so you declare it nonsense, whether it agrees with
data or not. Because if it doesn’t fit your familiar world then it has to
be wrong. Right, John?

-- 
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#686779

Odd
“Discussed before. Electrons have kinetic energy and no trajectory. I know 
you try to shove those two statements into your familiar world and it ..”

You put words together that seem to be contradictory, Odd. Can you explain this a different way, please?
No trajectory means, it isn’t moving in any direction?
Kinetic energy means, parts are spinning, perhaps?
Please express this in a different way.

Are you saying that electrons are windmills?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#686785

john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> wrote:
> Odd
> “Discussed before. Electrons have kinetic energy and no trajectory. I know 
> you try to shove those two statements into your familiar world and it ..”
> 
> You put words together that seem to be contradictory, Odd. Can you
> explain this a different way, please?

Not contradictory. Just different from your everyday experience. 

> No trajectory means, it isn’t moving in any direction?

No, that’s not what it means. A trajectory means that at any time t, you
can tell me where it is with coordinates x, y, z, and therefore you can
track its location through time. Electrons are moving but you cannot follow
a trajectory. You know they are moving for several reasons. One of them is
that we can measure their kinetic energy. 

> Kinetic energy means, parts are spinning, perhaps?

No. Translational kinetic energy is different than rotational kinetic
energy. Don’t confuse them. 

> Please express this in a different way.
> 
> Are you saying that electrons are windmills?

Not at all. Wrong direction. Off the road and into the weeds. 

> 



-- 
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#687045

Odd
“Electrons are moving but you cannot follow 
a trajectory. You know they are moving for several reasons. One of them is 
that we can measure their kinetic energy. ”

This is your huge stumbling point- you deny that electrons can be accelerating because they would instantaneously run out of fuel- and they don’t.  And you deny Matter can be absorbing gravitational energy because it would instantaneously  heat up- and it doesn’t.

The energy radiated by electrons because they accelerate is absorbed by protons to cause gravity and inertia, and then recycled to the electrons.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#687057

john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> wrote:
> Odd
> “Electrons are moving but you cannot follow 
> a trajectory. You know they are moving for several reasons. One of them is 
> that we can measure their kinetic energy. ”
> 
> This is your huge stumbling point- you deny that electrons can be
> accelerating because they would instantaneously run out of fuel- and they
> don’t.  And you deny Matter can be absorbing gravitational energy because
> it would instantaneously  heat up- and it doesn’t.

No, that’s not the rationale. 
You could read, you know. 

> 
> The energy radiated by electrons because they accelerate is absorbed by
> protons to cause gravity and inertia, and then recycled to the electrons.
> 



-- 
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#687062

Odd
“No, that’s not the rationale. ”
One of the “reasons “ given against LeSage gravity is that Matter would overheat- yes.
Where could it possibly go?
Maybe to the electrons? So they don’t crash?

Your whole theory is a compendium of denying the plausible and accepting insanities like zero volume ‘particles’ with no parts that are different from other zero volume particles with no parts, electrons that are ‘fundamental ‘ but somehow get ‘distributed’ and move but don’t move, and black holes that eat everything but spew huge relativistic jets of excited particles across vast swathes of the sky.

And so much more.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#687076

john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> wrote:
> Odd
> “No, that’s not the rationale. ”
> One of the “reasons “ given against LeSage gravity is that Matter would overheat- yes.

Yes. But that is not the rationale for quantum mechanics. 


> Where could it possibly go?
> Maybe to the electrons? So they don’t crash?
> 
> Your whole theory is a compendium of denying the plausible 

The nature of reality DOES NOT CONFORM TO PLAUSIBILTY. Nature dies lots of
things most people would find implausible. They nevertheless happen. 

Moreover, you spend all of your creative moments dreaming up implausible
things like precession without torque applied. I have no idea why you feel
justified condemning modern physics as implausible and then in the very
next breath proposing your own implausible alternatives. Do you?

> and accepting insanities like zero volume ‘particles’ with no parts that
> are different from other zero volume particles with no parts, electrons
> that are ‘fundamental ‘ but somehow get ‘distributed’ and move but don’t
> move, and black holes that eat everything but spew huge relativistic jets
> of excited particles across vast swathes of the sky.

You call anything that is outside of your own personal model of the world
“insanities”. Why do you do that?

> 
> And so much more.
> 



-- 
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#687077

john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes:

>Odd
>"No, that's not the rationale. "
>One of the 'reasons ' given against LeSage gravity is that Matter would overheat- yes.
>Where could it possibly go?
>Maybe to the electrons? So they don't crash?

OK so you claim in your kooktheory the energy the electrons radiate away
is replaced by this mysterious energy from the protons (with no
explanation, just handwaving).  But WHAT ABOUT THE ENERGY THE ELECTRONS
ARE RADIATING AWAY????? Why am I not being fried at this exact moment as
the walls, my computer monitor and especially the earth/floor as they glow
white-hot with all their electrons radiating as they curve/accelerate???

>Your whole theory
<snip babble>

Not "his" theory, it belongs to all science.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#687069

On Friday, May 25, 2018 at 8:14:36 AM UTC-7, john wrote:
> Odd
> “Electrons are moving but you cannot follow 
> a trajectory. You know they are moving for several reasons. One of them is 
> that we can measure their kinetic energy. ”
> 
> This is your huge stumbling point- you deny that electrons can be accelerating because they would instantaneously run out of fuel- and they don’t.  And you deny Matter can be absorbing gravitational energy because it would instantaneously  heat up- and it doesn’t.
> 
> The energy radiated by electrons because they accelerate is absorbed by protons to cause gravity and inertia, and then recycled to the electrons.

Q=EMC^2 as is G=EMCV2  Bert

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#687120

"reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> wrote
"G=EMCV2" is short for
"Glazier Exhibits Mentally Crippled Vulgar Values"


, 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#686640

john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes:

>Odd
>As long as you end up with a "colorless" combination, it's fine. Here
>"color" refers to QCD charge. There is for example a baryon with three up
>quarks, and another with three down quarks. There is also a meson with an
>up and an anti-up. There are no particles with just one quark or, say, two
>up quarks, because that can't be made colorless.

>Nice.
>But electrons are not in motion because then the moving charge would 
>radiate- right?

It's actually acceleration that they cannot do, but it appears that
perhaps you now have a clue. Will you keep it?

This doesn't really have anything to do with the question being asked,
however.

To the OP: The following is a vast oversimplification but it describes
the general idea of what is going on.

Imagine you're trying to pull a quark off of a proton (3 quarks). It takes
a lot of energy to work against the strong force. Finally there is so much
energy in the "stretched" bond that, using E=mc^2, the energy becomes a
quark-antiquark pair, which separate. The antiquark attaches to the quark
you are trying to pull off while the quark attaches to the other two of
the former proton. So you wind up with a meson (quark-antiquark pair)
instead of the quark you are trying to pull off, and the new quark and the
other two form a baryon (perhaps a proton again or neutron, or other
baryon). The increased mass of the final system comes from the energy you
added trying to pull the quark off. As long as various conserved
quantities are conserved (charge and so forth), this can happen.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#686691

On Tuesday, May 22, 2018 at 7:13:27 PM UTC+3, Michael Moroney wrote:
> john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes:
> 
> >Odd
> >As long as you end up with a "colorless" combination, it's fine. Here
> >"color" refers to QCD charge. There is for example a baryon with three up
> >quarks, and another with three down quarks. There is also a meson with an
> >up and an anti-up. There are no particles with just one quark or, say, two
> >up quarks, because that can't be made colorless.
> 
> >Nice.
> >But electrons are not in motion because then the moving charge would 
> >radiate- right?
> 
> It's actually acceleration that they cannot do, but it appears that
> perhaps you now have a clue. Will you keep it?
> 
> This doesn't really have anything to do with the question being asked,
> however.
> 
> To the OP: The following is a vast oversimplification but it describes
> the general idea of what is going on.
> 
> Imagine you're trying to pull a quark off of a proton (3 quarks). It takes
> a lot of energy to work against the strong force. Finally there is so much
> energy in the "stretched" bond that, using E=mc^2, the energy becomes a
> quark-antiquark pair, which separate. The antiquark attaches to the quark
> you are trying to pull off while the quark attaches to the other two of
> the former proton. So you wind up with a meson (quark-antiquark pair)
> instead of the quark you are trying to pull off, and the new quark and the
> other two form a baryon (perhaps a proton again or neutron, or other
> baryon). The increased mass of the final system comes from the energy you
> added trying to pull the quark off. As long as various conserved
> quantities are conserved (charge and so forth), this can happen.
===================
it seems that you become older and older
are you sure about what you are mumbling there ??

ELEDCTRONS DO NOT MOVE LINERARILY TO ANYWHERE 

*THEY VIBRATE !!!like a string 

TIA
Y.Porat
================

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web