More questions...

[Incendia]

...What the topic descriptions says...How much energy do you think it would take to split a quark? I don't care which flavour of quark.[Though it would be nice to know which one you are talking about]

[ajb]

Do you mean create a free quark? Quark-Gluon plasmas, which consist of nearly free quarks and gluons are possible. QCD predicts about 175 MeV per particle to create this phase of matter.

[Incendia]

No I mean split the quark...you know...like how you split an atom except probably not the same method would be used but it might I don't it could be possible maybe...

[ajb]

Split is not really a good term. The quark is a fundamental particle with no internal structure.

 

Ok, so if two (almost) free quarks collide, as long as their is enough energy in the centre of momentum frame one could create other particles, as long as it respects all the necessary conservation laws. This is exactly what happen in high energy collisions of ions.

 

Look up "hadronic cross sections" and "jets".

Edited December 5, 2010 by ajb

[Incendia]

...Atoms were once fundamental particles...Protons where once fundamental particles...

[ajb]

...Atoms were once fundamental particles...Protons where once fundamental particles...

 

Ok so what I should have said is that at present there is no evidence to suggest that quarks are not fundamental. No experiment to date has suggested that quarks have an internal structure.

Edited December 6, 2010 by ajb

[Incendia]

...Well the only way we can know is to try...

Your point of view: Waste of resources...No evidence suggesting that we should even try.

My point of view: If they are fundamental we will definitely know. If they aren't we could have waited years...even decades or centuries before finding evidence to suggest they are not fundamental. If we try it now we will know several years earlier. Quarks have a very short life so we are unlikely to see any evidence unless we are looking for it or actually trying to split the quark. Who knows...could be interesting...

[ajb]

Your point of view: Waste of resources...No evidence suggesting that we should even try.

 

 

Don't try to put words in my mouth. This is not my point of view at all.

 

What I have said is that to date, after many experiments there is no evidence that quarks have internal structure.

[Incendia]

Sorry...

[Mr Skeptic]

My point of view: If they are fundamental we will definitely know. If they aren't we could have waited years...even decades or centuries before finding evidence to suggest they are not fundamental. If we try it now we will know several years earlier. Quarks have a very short life so we are unlikely to see any evidence unless we are looking for it or actually trying to split the quark. Who knows...could be interesting...

 

If you can make an experiment that would determine once and for all whether any particle is fundamental, I think you'd get yourself a Nobel prize.

 

Whenever we checked, the result is that any substructure (if it exists at all) can't be detected by the experiment.

[Basim]

Trying to split a quark would be quite dangerous if you , look at atoms when they split apart they release huge quantities of gamma rays and radiation. Something like a quark could hold much more energy.Yet if you look at it another way our world is in an energy crisis and if we controlled tthe blast, like in nuclear power stations,we could have a very reliable energy source.JUdging by how small a quark is you wouldn't be very likely to get hold of a single quark.

[alpha2cen]

We have not seen a quark particle yet. It's in the our imagination. We know collider experiment result is matched with the computer simulated result(if there were quarks).

[swansont]

We have not seen a quark particle yet. It's in the our imagination. We know collider experiment result is matched with the computer simulated result(if there were quarks).

 

Seeing results that match very specific predictions is not the same as saying that the results are in our imagination. Perhaps this is merely a language/translation thing, but no. Direct observation is not a requirement for scientific validation.

[alpha2cen]

Before we find the Higgs Boson, the standard particle theory is not all correct. The important discovery have been happened very small difference of the experiment result since our science history began.

When we discovered the nucleus of the atom,that times theory was fitted well without any trouble, but one difference very few of the alpha particles trajectory were not fitted well, that makes we know the atom's truth. When we discovered the X-ray, we thought it as a very rare exception, but latter we could know the important behavior of the nucleus.