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.

Particle physics describes

 

 

Does that imply, that, de facto, gluons have mass ?

 

Massive Excitement=Very Large excitement?

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 ?

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.

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 ?

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.

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, 201213 yr by MigL

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).

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.

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?

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.