swansont Posted January 13, 2012 Share Posted January 13, 2012 I'm trying to say, that all quarks are bound, into groupings, today, because all quarks became bound, into those groupings, billions of years ago, when our universe was tiny. If our universe had, somehow, begun in a very expanded, diffuse state, similar to present epoch, perhaps then, in theory, you could have isolated quarks, "emanating" attractive Strong force-fields, that simply "couldn't reach" the other quarks, quantum-mechanically huge distances away. If physics were different, physics would be different. But this isn't the place to speculate on that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
questionposter Posted January 13, 2012 Author Share Posted January 13, 2012 Particle physics describes Does that imply, that, de facto, gluons have mass ? Massive Excitement=Very Large excitement? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Widdekind Posted January 14, 2012 Share Posted January 14, 2012 If physics were different, physics would be different. But this isn't the place to speculate on that. You're denying the Big Bang theory, of a hot dense compact origin, of our universe, from which state, all quarks emerged, bound into color-neutral hadrons ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted January 14, 2012 Share Posted January 14, 2012 You're denying the Big Bang theory, of a hot dense compact origin, of our universe, from which state, all quarks emerged, bound into color-neutral hadrons ? You'll notice that I quoted "If our universe had, somehow, begun in a very expanded, diffuse state". That's not the Big Bang. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Widdekind Posted January 14, 2012 Share Posted January 14, 2012 You'll notice that I quoted "If our universe had, somehow, begun in a very expanded, diffuse state". That's not the Big Bang. Does observed quark color confinement imply the Big Bang, i.e. all quarks began jointly immersed, in a common 'QGP', from out of whose expansion, they all emerged in groups ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted January 14, 2012 Share Posted January 14, 2012 Does observed quark color confinement imply the Big Bang, i.e. all quarks began jointly immersed, in a common 'QGP', from out of whose expansion, they all emerged in groups ? I have no idea. But, again, the discussion here is not concerning the big bang. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MigL Posted January 14, 2012 Share Posted January 14, 2012 (edited) I see what you are getting at Widdekind. The initial conditions of the quark-gluon plasma ( obviously shortly after t=0 ) constrained the quarks to be for-ever-after bound, and that is their state even today and in the future ( assuming no big crunch ). Your argument that if initial conditions were not hi-energy/density then quarks may not be bound as they are, unfortunately cannot be proven. Still its an interesting hypothesis. Edited January 14, 2012 by MigL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Widdekind Posted January 15, 2012 Share Posted January 15, 2012 I understand, that the Strong "color" force increases with distance, out to some maximum effective range (~1 fm), and up to some maximum effective strength (~1 GeV/fm = 10tons). I understand, therefore, that "color confinement" presupposes, that the considered quarks, were already quite close to each other, i.e. "all in the same bag" (cp. 'Bag Model'). For such "quarks in a crew", the harder you try to tug on one quark, the harder that quark's colleagues tug back. But, I also understand, that, out past some maximum effective range (~1 fm), even the Strong "color" force then begins to decline with distance, presumably approximately as 1/d2, given that the SF is modeled mathematically as a "gauge field" (Nambu. Quarks). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
immijimmi Posted January 20, 2012 Share Posted January 20, 2012 The interaction between nucleons has a finite range. The interaction between quarks does not drop off. The former is a residual effect of the latter. http://en.wikipedia....ong_interaction From the Wiki page: The strong interaction is observable in two areas: on a larger scale (about 1 to 3 femtometers (fm)), it is the force that binds protons and neutrons together to form the nucleus of an atom. On the smaller scale (less than about 0.8 fm, the radius of a nucleon), it is also the force (carried by gluons) that holds quarks together to form protons, neutrons and other hadron particles. Strong interaction isn't observed after 3fm, like I said, so we don't know from this information if it has any effect past this distance. I know i've read somewhere that gluons have mass and was .14 MeV. Regardless of whether they do or not, there is actually another explanation for the limited range of the color force: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gluon Scroll down to 'confinement' and read. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
immijimmi Posted February 23, 2012 Share Posted February 23, 2012 The interaction between nucleons has a finite range. The interaction between quarks does not drop off. The former is a residual effect of the latter. http://en.wikipedia....ong_interaction Any quark you create is bound to at least one other quark. You will never have a single quark. My apologies, I mistook attributes of the residual strong force as effective on both types. I have an interesting thought experiment related to this topic, however: In the event that tachyons exist, would a tachyonic quark be able bind with bradyonic quarks into a composite particle if it was to orbit the other quarks at superluminal speeds? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted February 24, 2012 Share Posted February 24, 2012 My apologies, I mistook attributes of the residual strong force as effective on both types. I have an interesting thought experiment related to this topic, however: In the event that tachyons exist, would a tachyonic quark be able bind with bradyonic quarks into a composite particle if it was to orbit the other quarks at superluminal speeds? That's several layers of conjecture beyond what I could possibly comment on. It presumes that tachyons exist, and would also reflect the same structure as the "normal" particle we already know to exist and also would interact the same way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now