Jump to content
Kartazion

Mass and Quarks ... Are they particles?

Recommended Posts

In quantum physics are quarks particles? Because the mass subsists.

Where then would mass be produced by a wave complex only?

Just to knwo if it's always an eternal question to choose between wave or particle.

Or both?

I recall that it is to explain the mass at the quantum levels, namely the quarks. 

We are still talking about Wave–particle duality for the mass?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Kartazion said:

In quantum physics are quarks particles? Because the mass subsists.

Where then would mass be produced by a wave complex only?

Just to knwo if it's always an eternal question to choose between wave or particle.

Or both?

Quarks have the same status within the Standard Model as all the other fundamental building blocks - whether you detect them with particle-like properties or with wave-like properties depends solely on your experimental setup. This is not an ontological question (the nature of the entity is either one or the other, or both, or neither), but an epistemological one - what can the experimenter know about the system in question? What information about the system is made available through a specific, given setup? So essentially, whether something appears as a wave or a particle is more an expression of the relationship between the quantum system and the observer, than it is a statement of the nature of the entity itself. This is true for all of the particles within the Standard Model.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

CERN uses protons in its tubular accelerator. What is the matter used as protons?

Please excuse my english.
 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Kartazion said:

CERN uses protons in its tubular accelerator. What is the matter used as protons?

Please excuse my english.
 

Protons are matter. They use protons. They most likely strip an electron from hydrogen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, swansont said:

Protons are matter. They use protons. They most likely strip an electron from hydrogen.

My question is what matter do they use in the accelerator? And why the hydrogen and the electron?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Kartazion said:

Just to knwo if it's always an eternal question to choose between wave or particle.

There is no choice. There is a single description which is popularised as "wave vs particle".

4 hours ago, Kartazion said:

I recall that it is to explain the mass at the quantum levels, namely the quarks. 

Other particles have mass, for example, electrons which are not made of quarks.

The particles get their mass from the Higgs mechanism. 

The mass of the quarks is only a small proportion of the mass of a proton. The majority of the mass comes from the binding energy holding the quarks together.

4 hours ago, Kartazion said:

We are still talking about Wave–particle duality for the mass?

There is no direct connection between wave-particle duality and mass.

21 minutes ago, Kartazion said:

My question is what matter do they use in the accelerator?

Protons.

Quote

And why the hydrogen and the electron?

If you strip an electron from a hydrogen atom, you release a free proton. It is the easiest way of generating large numbers of protons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Strange said:

If you strip an electron from a hydrogen atom, you release a free proton. 

Ok. Why don't we directly use protium which is in abundance naturally?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Kartazion said:

Ok. Why don't we directly use protium which is in abundance naturally?

Accelerators use charged particles (usually protons, ions, electrons) because they are charged. This means that they can be accelerated and steered (and the size of bunches controlled )by using electric and magnetic fields. This is no possible with neutral atoms.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
13 minutes ago, Strange said:

Accelerators use charged particles (usually protons, ions, electrons) because they are charged. This means that they can be accelerated and steered (and the size of bunches controlled )by using electric and magnetic fields. This is no possible with neutral atoms.

Ok interesting. But the protium is proton alone. And the proton is positively charged. Then there is only a negative electric field, no?

Edited by Kartazion

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Kartazion said:

Ok interesting. But the protium is proton alone. And the proton is positively charged. Then there is only a negative magnetic field, no?

Protium is another name for the simplest hydrogen isotope (one proton + one electron) as opposed to deuterium (1 proton, 1 neutron, 1 electron) or tritium (1 proton, 2 neutrons, 1 electron).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isotopes_of_hydrogen#Hydrogen-1_(protium)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Strange said:

Protium is another name for the simplest hydrogen isotope (one proton + one electron) as opposed to deuterium (1 proton, 1 neutron, 1 electron) or tritium (1 proton, 2 neutrons, 1 electron).

Protium is electronless. So why removed an electron from the hydrogen?

But I understand that we don't use protium. The question is why.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Kartazion said:

Protium is electronless. So why removed an electron from the hydrogen?

Protium IS hydrogen.

Quote

The most abundant isotope, hydrogen-1, protium, or light hydrogen, contains no neutrons and is simply a proton and an electron. Protium is stable and makes up 99.985% of naturally occurring hydrogen atoms.[2]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_atom#Isotopes

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Strange said:

Protium IS hydrogen.

But the hydrogen you're talking about had an electron.

protium.PNG.d1a60887da74f9e8daf036ca53b5027a.PNG

I'm talking about hydrogen without an electron if you want.

The capture above comes from Wikipedia.

Simply a proton and an electron as it is written below is not protium. Because he has an electron.

21 minutes ago, Strange said:

The most abundant isotope, hydrogen-1, protium, or light hydrogen, contains no neutrons and is simply a proton and an electron. Protium is stable and makes up 99.985% of naturally occurring hydrogen atoms.[2]

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Kartazion said:

But the hydrogen you're talking about had an electron.

protium.PNG.d1a60887da74f9e8daf036ca53b5027a.PNG

I'm talking about hydrogen without an electron if you want.

The capture above comes from Wikipedia.

Simply a proton and an electron as it is written below is not protium. Because he has an electron.

 

Protium is rarely found in nature. Hydrogen is abundant. The electron can be removed, and then you have protium. A proton.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Kartazion said:

I'm talking about hydrogen without an electron if you want.

Hydrogen without an electron is a proton. That is what is used in LHC (normally, they sometimes also use heavier ions).

Free protons do not exist on Earth (in any significant number nor for very long). So they are produced from hydrogen for the LHC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
10 minutes ago, Strange said:

Hydrogen without an electron is a proton. That is what is used in LHC (normally, they sometimes also use heavier ions).

Free protons do not exist on Earth (in any significant number nor for very long). So they are produced from hydrogen for the LHC.

18 minutes ago, swansont said:

Protium is rarely found in nature.

That explains why. Thanks.
 

18 minutes ago, swansont said:

The electron can be removed, and then you have protium. A proton.

But then, how do you remove the electron from the hydrogen atom? By what technical process?

Edited by Kartazion

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Kartazion said:

The capture above comes from Wikipedia.

Simply a proton and an electron as it is written below is not protium. Because he has an electron.

Both these quotations are from Wikipedia. I think the one you are quting is ambiguous. The "it" in the final clause refers to the hydrogen atom, not the proton.

As Wikipedia is not always a reliable source, how about:

Quote

Protium, isotope of hydrogen (q.v.) with atomic weight of approximately 1; its nucleus consists of only one proton. Ordinary hydrogen is made up almost entirely of protium.

https://www.britannica.com/science/protium-isotope

Quote

Protium is the most prevalent hydrogen isotope, with an abundance of 99.98%. It consists of one proton and one electron.

https://courses.lumenlearning.com/introchem/chapter/isotopes-of-hydrogen/

Quote

Definition of protium

: the ordinary light hydrogen isotope of atomic mass 1

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/protium

 

21 minutes ago, Kartazion said:

But then, how do you remove the electron from the hydrogen atom? By what technical process?

Good question. I don't know. Strong electric field, possibly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Kartazion said:

But then, how do you remove the electron from the hydrogen atom? By what technical process?

It's called ionisation and can happen with suitable radiation, or in solution.

However in solution,

22 minutes ago, Strange said:

 

Free protons do not exist on Earth (in any significant number nor for very long).

They quickly attach to another species.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Kartazion said:

But then, how do you remove the electron from the hydrogen atom? By what technical process?

Strange’s supposition is correct - a large electric field will do it. Provided by a potential difference of at least 13.6V (in practice, much larger) since that’s the ionization energy. Photons will do it, but the optics for >13.6 eV photons are hard to work with.

 

https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/chemistry/field-ionization

“Field ionization (FI) is the ionization of a gaseous molecule by an intense electric field, usually created by a sharp electrode at a high potential.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Finally realised that the key word was "proton source" and found this explanation:

Quote

The proton source is a simple bottle of hydrogen gas. An electric field is used to strip hydrogen atoms of their electrons to yield protons. Linac 2, the first accelerator in the chain, accelerates the protons to the energy of 50 MeV. The beam is then injected into the Proton Synchrotron Booster (PSB), which accelerates the protons to 1.4 GeV, followed by the Proton Synchrotron (PS), which pushes the beam to 25 GeV. Protons are then sent to the Super Proton Synchrotron (SPS) where they are accelerated to 450 GeV.

https://home.cern/science/accelerators/accelerator-complex

More detail here:  https://www.lhc-closer.es/taking_a_closer_look_at_lhc/0.proton_source

And even more here: https://accelconf.web.cern.ch/accelconf/IPAC2011/papers/thps025.pdf

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you all. It's cool to be able to speak with experts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.