Why 1/3 ?
in [Physics]
|
Prev: Wanted: A mathematical definition for consonant...
Next: All laws in science are based upon explanations of observations. All explanations are theoretical. Therefore laws are theories.
From: Sam Wormley on 6 Jun 2010 13:33 On 6/6/10 12:27 PM, OG wrote: > "Sam Wormley"<swormley1(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > news:Ss-dncQjtv81S5bRnZ2dnUVZ_g6dnZ2d(a)mchsi.com... >> On 6/6/10 8:48 AM, OG wrote: >>> Is there an inherent explanation within the standard model for the of the >>> charge on quarks to be (plus/minus) 1/3 or 2/3 that of the charge on the >>> lepton? >>> >>> >> >> It's just a model--one of several that works. > > So, no inherent reason. > > It does seem interesting that two inherently separate classes of particle > (leptons and quarks) have different units of charge, but the units of charge > are related by the 1/3& 2/3 ratios. > > Why x/3 rather than any other number? > > Would you rather have x/6 ? Part of the answer come from the baggage of lepton being assigned unit charge.
From: OG on 6 Jun 2010 13:49 "Sam Wormley" <swormley1(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:xPSdnYktZ8yYQZbRnZ2dnUVZ_uidnZ2d(a)mchsi.com... > On 6/6/10 12:27 PM, OG wrote: >> "Sam Wormley"<swormley1(a)gmail.com> wrote in message >> news:Ss-dncQjtv81S5bRnZ2dnUVZ_g6dnZ2d(a)mchsi.com... >>> On 6/6/10 8:48 AM, OG wrote: >>>> Is there an inherent explanation within the standard model for the of >>>> the >>>> charge on quarks to be (plus/minus) 1/3 or 2/3 that of the charge on >>>> the >>>> lepton? >>>> >>>> >>> >>> It's just a model--one of several that works. >> >> So, no inherent reason. >> >> It does seem interesting that two inherently separate classes of particle >> (leptons and quarks) have different units of charge, but the units of >> charge >> are related by the 1/3& 2/3 ratios. >> >> Why x/3 rather than any other number? >> >> > > Would you rather have x/6 ? Nice to think that my preference would be taken into account "And God said - well OG, what do you fancy, 3? or may be 7?" :-) Aren't you interested in why x/3 ? > Part of the answer come from the baggage of lepton being assigned > unit charge. But why should the unit charge on the lepton be an integer multiplier of (but not the same as) the unit charge on the quark? I was wondering if there was a (known) reason why the x=3 rather than any other integer. I kinda wondered whether it might be anything to do with the number of spatial dimensions.
From: J. Clarke on 6 Jun 2010 14:08 On 6/6/2010 1:27 PM, OG wrote: > "Sam Wormley"<swormley1(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > news:Ss-dncQjtv81S5bRnZ2dnUVZ_g6dnZ2d(a)mchsi.com... >> On 6/6/10 8:48 AM, OG wrote: >>> Is there an inherent explanation within the standard model for the of the >>> charge on quarks to be (plus/minus) 1/3 or 2/3 that of the charge on the >>> lepton? >>> >>> >> >> It's just a model--one of several that works. > > So, no inherent reason. > > It does seem interesting that two inherently separate classes of particle > (leptons and quarks) have different units of charge, but the units of charge > are related by the 1/3& 2/3 ratios. > > Why x/3 rather than any other number? That question was asked long ago and quarks are the best explanation anybody could come up with. If you're asking for a mechanism by which quarks are given those specific charges then you're on the cutting edge and the honest answer is "nobody knows, or if they do know they haven't figured out yet that they know".
From: Sam Wormley on 6 Jun 2010 14:45 On 6/6/10 12:49 PM, OG wrote: > Aren't you interested in why x/3 ? The measured ratio of charge between quarks and leptons is 3. It was already pointed out to you that baryons are formed of three quarks. Why is there a universe?
From: OG on 6 Jun 2010 15:17
"Sam Wormley" <swormley1(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:PZSdnYxDyq9YcZbRnZ2dnUVZ_jCdnZ2d(a)mchsi.com... > On 6/6/10 12:49 PM, OG wrote: >> Aren't you interested in why x/3 ? > > The measured ratio of charge between quarks and leptons > is 3. It was already pointed out to you that baryons are > formed of three quarks. But you have no interest in 'why'. That's fine. > Why is there a universe? Yup; that's a good question too. |