derek w Posted February 15, 2013 Share Posted February 15, 2013 Providing you have up/down and anti-up/down quarks,all other particles will be created as side effect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajb Posted February 15, 2013 Share Posted February 15, 2013 What about the electron? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
derek w Posted February 15, 2013 Author Share Posted February 15, 2013 What about the electron? High energy radiation,creates electron/positron pairs via photon+photon collisions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajb Posted February 15, 2013 Share Posted February 15, 2013 So, you are not suggesting that all "stuff" is made just of quarks and anti-quarks? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
derek w Posted February 15, 2013 Author Share Posted February 15, 2013 So, you are not suggesting that all "stuff" is made just of quarks and anti-quarks? No.Free quarks in a quark gluon soup,would have greater energy than quarks confined in protons,they would have to release high energy radiation to become confined.That high energy radiation then creating electron/positron pairs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mathematic Posted February 15, 2013 Share Posted February 15, 2013 Once quarks combine you end up with neutrons and protons. The neutron decay leads to protons and electrons. Question - in this model how did the universe become electrically neutral? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted February 15, 2013 Share Posted February 15, 2013 Providing you have up/down and anti-up/down quarks,all other particles will be created as side effect. What about matter/antimatter asymmetry? Why u/d, if you're creating everything else out of the energy of the system? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
derek w Posted February 16, 2013 Author Share Posted February 16, 2013 If 2 up and 1 down quark are confined,then the electron must be the opposite effect? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beefpatty Posted February 16, 2013 Share Posted February 16, 2013 The electron is fundamental, i.e. it is not made of quarks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
derek w Posted February 16, 2013 Author Share Posted February 16, 2013 The electron is fundamental, i.e. it is not made of quarks. If digging a hole creates a pile of dirt,that does not infer that a pile of dirt is made of holes. I am not inferring that electrons are made of quarks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beefpatty Posted February 16, 2013 Share Posted February 16, 2013 Sorry, by "opposite effect" I thought you meant 2 down and 1 up quark. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Przemyslaw.Gruchala Posted February 17, 2013 Share Posted February 17, 2013 (edited) I am not inferring that electrons are made of quarks. Then you should have no problem explaining how proton is converted to neutron and positron in beta decay+. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beta_decay And how proton that received electron is also converted to neutron in electron capture. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron_capture Edited February 17, 2013 by Przemyslaw.Gruchala Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
derek w Posted February 18, 2013 Author Share Posted February 18, 2013 Then you should have no problem explaining how proton is converted to neutron and positron in beta decay+. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beta_decay And how proton that received electron is also converted to neutron in electron capture. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron_capture I don't see that this disproves my original statement "that provided you have up/down and anti-up/down quarks all other particles will be created as side effects. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajb Posted February 18, 2013 Share Posted February 18, 2013 I don't see that this disproves my original statement "that provided you have up/down and anti-up/down quarks all other particles will be created as side effects.It is a very loose statement and I am not sure where you want to take it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
derek w Posted February 18, 2013 Author Share Posted February 18, 2013 quote:- Earlier RHIC results suggested that when gold nuclei collide head-on their kinetic energy dissociates many nucleons and forms the hot,dense plasma of quarks and gluons,which must immediately begin to expand and cool.The hot plasma lasts only 10^-23 seconds,and only when the plasma cools sufficiently do the quarks and gluons "freeze out",leaving a spray of thousands of elementary particles carrying the signature of the hot,dense plasma that led to their production. (end quote.) Question, what is meant by "signature of the hot,dense plasma that led to their production"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted February 18, 2013 Share Posted February 18, 2013 The particles you produce are dependent on the energy and charge available that created the plasma. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
derek w Posted February 19, 2013 Author Share Posted February 19, 2013 (edited) Then you should have no problem explaining how proton is converted to neutron and positron in beta decay+. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beta_decay And how proton that received electron is also converted to neutron in electron capture. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron_capture The interesting thing from these articles,is does the rate of decay go up if the background level of neutrino's is higher,e.g.closer to the sun? Thanks Swansont for your reply. Edited February 19, 2013 by derek w Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
derek w Posted February 20, 2013 Author Share Posted February 20, 2013 Question is the weak force an accumulative force? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SamBridge Posted February 21, 2013 Share Posted February 21, 2013 If you just study particle physics more you will fine many physicists wanted some simple way to create a universal set of particles to describe all other particles and failed, so far there's no proof. The closest thing is string theory and it has no direct observable evidence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Przemyslaw.Gruchala Posted February 21, 2013 Share Posted February 21, 2013 If you just study particle physics more you will fine many physicists wanted some simple way to create a universal set of particles to describe all other particles and failed, so far there's no proof. Their work was immediately placed to speculations.. The closest thing is string theory and it has no direct observable evidence. You must be kidding.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
derek w Posted February 21, 2013 Author Share Posted February 21, 2013 My understanding is that particles are thought of as wave packets,and that interaction changes the wave packets. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Przemyslaw.Gruchala Posted February 21, 2013 Share Posted February 21, 2013 (edited) My understanding is that particles are thought of as wave packets,and that interaction changes the wave packets. There are needed at least positive wave and negative wave. If they overlap, we detect neutral object. Otherwise charge must be hidden variable. Property of particle. But such model doesn't explain how two gamma photons are producing electron and positron. Property is automagically split.. It's like splitting 1 cent in finances... Edited February 21, 2013 by Przemyslaw.Gruchala Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
derek w Posted February 22, 2013 Author Share Posted February 22, 2013 There are needed at least positive wave and negative wave. If they overlap, we detect neutral object. Otherwise charge must be hidden variable. Property of particle. But such model doesn't explain how two gamma photons are producing electron and positron. Property is automagically split.. It's like splitting 1 cent in finances... In a 4-dimensional space,any point in 3-dimensional space can be described as oscillating in the 4th dimension. backward time wave packets,forward time wave packets,or 50% forward 50% backward,or 60% forward 40% backward etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Przemyslaw.Gruchala Posted February 22, 2013 Share Posted February 22, 2013 backward time wave packets,forward time wave packets,or 50% forward 50% backward,or 60% forward 40% backward etc. So you're suggesting right now that positron is electron that travels back in time? And antiproton is proton that travels back in time? And pion+ is pion-, muon+ is muon-, tau+ is tau- etc that all travels back in time than their opposite electric charge equivalents.. ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted February 22, 2013 Share Posted February 22, 2013 So you're suggesting right now that positron is electron that travels back in time? And antiproton is proton that travels back in time? And pion+ is pion-, muon+ is muon-, tau+ is tau- etc that all travels back in time than their opposite electric charge equivalents.. ? That's what you get of you apply time reversal to the particle, with CPT as a good symmetry. 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