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: OG on 6 Jun 2010 15:30 "J. Clarke" <jclarke.usenet(a)cox.net> wrote in message news:hugpfa02a23(a)news2.newsguy.com... > 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". > That is indeed the question I was asking; not about the specific value of the charges, but the reason for the very specific ratio between them being integer values to presumably some parts in 10^(quite a lot). Thanks
From: J. Clarke on 6 Jun 2010 16:35 On 6/6/2010 3:30 PM, OG wrote: > "J. Clarke"<jclarke.usenet(a)cox.net> wrote in message > news:hugpfa02a23(a)news2.newsguy.com... >> 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". >> > > That is indeed the question I was asking; not about the specific value of > the charges, but the reason for the very specific ratio between them being > integer values to presumably some parts in 10^(quite a lot). Well, that's a question for the string theorists--I understand that they do have an explanation--but string theory I don't even _think_ I understand.
From: Sue... on 6 Jun 2010 18:23 On Jun 6, 9:48 am, "OG" <o...(a)gwynnefamily.org.uk> 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? If it not the number of toes on a sloth, surely you will direct us to a relevant page that indicates a better reason. Quark Confinement and the Fractional Quantum Hall Effect http://arxiv.org/abs/0708.3538 Sue...
From: Igor on 7 Jun 2010 11:55 On Jun 6, 1:16 pm, OG <o...(a)gwynnefamily.org.uk> wrote: > Igor wrote: > > On Jun 6, 9:48 am, "OG" <o...(a)gwynnefamily.org.uk> 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? > > > Because it takes three of them to make up a baryon, and baryons are > > defined as having integral charge. We could just have easily defined > > quark charge as being integral and then baryons would occur in > > multiples of three. > > Well yes, hopefully everyone here knows that. > > Why three though? > > Is there anything inherent in the Standard Model that makes '3' the > special number rather than 2, 4, 5 or 7 ? Free quarks don't seem to exist. They do come in quark-antiquark pairs though in Mesons. So the number 2 is "special" too. But you have to understand that in chromodynamics, since color is never observed in composite particles, the numbers two and three represent the simplest colorless combinations. More complicated combinations have been hypothesized, but, to my knowledge, they've never been observed.
From: Igor on 7 Jun 2010 11:57
On Jun 6, 3:17 pm, "OG" <o...(a)gwynnefamily.org.uk> wrote: > "Sam Wormley" <sworml...(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. Science usually answers "how", not "why". "Why" is for philosophers. |