ydoaPs Posted January 30, 2005 Share Posted January 30, 2005 ha ha he he!!!!!! http://www.subatomicparticles.com/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted January 30, 2005 Share Posted January 30, 2005 Don't you just love websites like that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ydoaPs Posted January 30, 2005 Author Share Posted January 30, 2005 he keeps saying that quarks have never been detected. i think he is a little confused. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted January 30, 2005 Share Posted January 30, 2005 Bow down before OMEGA, quarky heathens! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mart Posted January 30, 2005 Share Posted January 30, 2005 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted January 30, 2005 Share Posted January 30, 2005 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mart Posted January 30, 2005 Share Posted January 30, 2005 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted January 31, 2005 Share Posted January 31, 2005 Scary, isn't it? There are millions of people like him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mart Posted January 31, 2005 Share Posted January 31, 2005 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Severian Posted January 31, 2005 Share Posted January 31, 2005 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... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mart Posted January 31, 2005 Share Posted January 31, 2005 It is significantly harder to find a correct statement... One wrong one will do. Can you give me an incorrect statement? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Severian Posted February 8, 2005 Share Posted February 8, 2005 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Mattson Posted February 8, 2005 Share Posted February 8, 2005 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rigney Posted May 24, 2010 Share Posted May 24, 2010 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
emcelhannon Posted May 31, 2010 Share Posted May 31, 2010 Has a quark ever existed or been detected indepenent of neutron or proton? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
insane_alien Posted May 31, 2010 Share Posted May 31, 2010 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moontanman Posted June 1, 2010 Share Posted June 1, 2010 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 mergedyes, 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
insane_alien Posted June 1, 2010 Share Posted June 1, 2010 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
emcelhannon Posted June 4, 2010 Share Posted June 4, 2010 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
insane_alien Posted June 4, 2010 Share Posted June 4, 2010 probably best to get one of oour resident experts to do that. i only have a hazy understanding of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Severian Posted June 14, 2010 Share Posted June 14, 2010 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ydoaPs Posted June 14, 2010 Author Share Posted June 14, 2010 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. 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