No Quarks?

[ydoaPs]

ha ha he he!!!!!!

http://www.subatomicparticles.com/

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Don't you just love websites like that?

[ydoaPs]

he keeps saying that quarks have never been detected. i think he is a little confused.

[Sayonara]

Bow down before OMEGA, quarky heathens!

[Mart]

Don't you just love websites like that?

I'm not an expert in Atomic Physics. Can you point out to me the first thing on the site that you know to be wrong?

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

I'm not an expert in Atomic Physics. Can you point out to me the first thing on the site that you know to be wrong?

he keeps saying that quarks have never been detected. i think he is a little confused.

There you go.

[Mart]

Thanks Cap'n. What worries me about his site is he seems to a non-expert like me to be acting rationally and seems to have some good knowledge of the subject. I expect you're an expert and can spot his crankiness. I can't. Of course, my problem extends to every area where I'm not an expert : there are so many! So I either I have to trust your judgement (or someone with your depth of knowledge) or take the long route (like you will have done) and study the details. It seems to me that topics of this type should be confined to an expert forum or at least have a health warning.

[Sayonara]

Scary, isn't it?

 

There are millions of people like him.

[Mart]

Scary' date=' isn't it?

 

There are millions of people like him.[/quote']

Who is him? Do you mean me or Cap'n or the guy that Cap'n was laughing at?

[Severian]

I'm not an expert in Atomic Physics. Can you point out to me the first thing on the site that you know to be wrong?

 

It is significantly harder to find a correct statement...

[Mart]

It is significantly harder to find a correct statement...

One wrong one will do.

Can you give me an incorrect statement?

[Severian]

One wrong one will do.

Can you give me an incorrect statement?

 

Well, the author claims that quarks have never been experimentally confirmed. They most certainly have.

[Tom Mattson]

One wrong one will do.

Can you give me an incorrect statement?

 

There are so many...

 

OK' date=' here's a concrete example:

 

Next I will offer a reason that the Omega Minus particle is the heaviest "strange" baryon

(and it's not because it's composed of three strange quarks)

 

He gets the mass of the omega minus correct, but it is far from being the most heaviest strange baryon. In fact, the omega(1672) isn't even the most massive omega resonance! Then there are the Xi baryons, which are also strange, and whose most massive resonance (2500 MeV) just barely edges out the most massive omega resonance (2470 MeV).

 

You can see all the info for yourself at the following site:

 

Particle Data Group: Baryons

[rigney]

Could it be possible that a quark may be the offspring of a "QuauQ"? You know, that elusive slice of bread with only one side? I ask this simply because I know absolutely nothing of physics, other than X-Laxs.

[emcelhannon]

Has a quark ever existed or been detected indepenent of neutron or proton?

[insane_alien]

Has a quark ever existed or been detected indepenent of neutron or proton?

 

yes, but only with other quarks, you can't get a quark on its own but they can come in bundles of 2 as well as three.

[Moontanman]

Could it be possible that a quark may be the offspring of a "QuauQ"? You know, that elusive slice of bread with only one side? I ask this simply because I know absolutely nothing of physics, other than X-Laxs.

 

What is a QuauQ? A google search turned up nothing pertaining to subatomic particles.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

yes, but only with other quarks, you can't get a quark on its own but they can come in bundles of 2 as well as three.

 

Aren't quarks more strongly attracted to each other the further apart they are?

[insane_alien]

Aren't quarks more strongly attracted to each other the further apart they are?

 

only up to the limits of the strong nuclear force. however, the energy expended in getting the quarks that far appart means that you've put in enough energy for a quark anti-quark pair to form leading to you having no free neutron.

[emcelhannon]

only up to the limits of the strong nuclear force. however, the energy expended in getting the quarks that far appart means that you've put in enough energy for a quark anti-quark pair to form leading to you having no free neutron.

 

Thanks Alien,

That's an interesting thing I never knew.

I'd like to know more about the strong nuclear force and what it's limits are. I've never heard of a force increasing with distance, and I wonder if it's possible to know why.

I don't understand the excessive amount of energy leading to no free neutron, either. Could you explain that too.

[insane_alien]

probably best to get one of oour resident experts to do that. i only have a hazy understanding of it.

[Severian]

I am not a resident expert, but...

 

I've never heard of a force increasing with distance, and I wonder if it's possible to know why.

 

It is actually caused by the gluon-self-coupling. The photon isn't electrically charged so doesn't couple to itself (not quite true, but almost). The gluon, on the other hand, carries a color charge so does couple to itself, and it is this extra interaction that flips the sign of its energy/distance dependence making the strong force increase with distance.

 

I don't understand the excessive amount of energy leading to no free neutron, either. Could you explain that too.

 

I am not sure I even understand the question. It is perfectly reasonable to have a free neutron. It is neutral and colorless.

[ydoaPs]

I am not sure I even understand the question. It is perfectly reasonable to have a free neutron. It is neutral and colorless.

 

We do, btw, make free neutrons. I've detected them personally.