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: Androcles on 7 Jun 2010 12:11 "Igor" <thoovler(a)excite.com> wrote in message news:c7adc003-1e59-43c6-8bb3-a55478348afa(a)t10g2000yqg.googlegroups.com... 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. ==================================================== Q: HOW does light travel at c in all frames of inert references? A: Because Rabbi St. Einstein the Divine said so and the fuckwit hoovler calls that "science". Q: WHY does light travel at c in all inert references of frames? A: Because Rabbi St. Einstein the Divine said so and the fuckwit hoovler calls that "science". Q: WHAT makes light travel at c in all references of inert frames? A: Because Rabbi St. Einstein the Divine said so and the fuckwit hoovler calls that "science". Q: How does the fuckwit hoovler come to that conclusion? A: He's a sheep that runs with the rest of the flock. Q: Why does the fuckwit hoovler come to that conclusion? A: The rest of the flock says "baa" and hoovler has to say "baa" or he won't belong to the flock.
From: Igor on 7 Jun 2010 18:28 On Jun 7, 12:11 pm, "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_z> wrote: > "Igor" <thoov...(a)excite.com> wrote in message > > news:c7adc003-1e59-43c6-8bb3-a55478348afa(a)t10g2000yqg.googlegroups.com... > 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. > ==================================================== > Q: HOW does light travel at c in all frames of inert references? > A: Because Rabbi St. Einstein the Divine said so and the fuckwit > hoovler calls that "science". > Q: WHY does light travel at c in all inert references of frames? > A: Because Rabbi St. Einstein the Divine said so and the fuckwit > hoovler calls that "science". > Q: WHAT makes light travel at c in all references of inert frames? > A: Because Rabbi St. Einstein the Divine said so and the fuckwit > hoovler calls that "science". > Q: How does the fuckwit hoovler come to that conclusion? > A: He's a sheep that runs with the rest of the flock. > Q: Why does the fuckwit hoovler come to that conclusion? > A: The rest of the flock says "baa" and hoovler has to say "baa" > or he won't belong to the flock. Still beating your sheep?
From: PD on 7 Jun 2010 18:58 On Jun 6, 12:16 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 ? It's the necessity to produce a color singlet. This in turn comes from the number of colors. This in turn comes from the SU(3) symmetry that is *observed*. There is no apparent reason to favor SU(3) over SU(7), other than this appears to be the result from spontaneous symmetry breaking of a higher symmetry. This higher symmetry also does not have any inherent reason for being what it is. The necessity to produce a color singlet has to do with the fact that the gluons, unlike the photon, carry color charge themselves, and therefore exhibit anti-screening rather than screening, which in turn results in confinement (or if you like, asymptotic freedom). PD
From: franklinhu on 8 Jun 2010 01:04 On Jun 6, 6:48 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? I don't think anyone would admit it, but the reason why 1/3 and 2/3 where chosen was that they first found that the proton had 3 constituents that made up a +1 positive charge. Then they made the completely unfounded assumption that a neutron which has about the same mass as a proton is also made out of 3 constituents which has a zero charge. So the question is how can a + b + c = 1 and d + e + f = 0? Well, if a & b are 2/3 and c is -1/3, you get +1 If d & e are -1/3 and f = 2/3, you get 0 So if you call the 2/3 charge "up" and the -1/3 "down", then you have the current state of affairs with fractional quark charges. Of course, no one has ever seen such a fractional charge, nor have I seen any convincing evidence that a neutron consists of 3 constituents. Based on that, I think this whole quark thing is a bunch of hooey. It would be much simpler to say a proton consists of 3 constituents which is 2 whole charge positrons and 1 electron (leaves net charge of +1) and to say a neutron has 2 constituents which is just 1 positron and 1 electron. Therefore, we can stick with whole charges and do not need quarks. Every particle I have looked at can be constructed of whole charge positrons and electrons and generally everything decays into (or can be made to decay) into positrons and electrons which should be considered the fundamental building blocks of matter - not quarks. For for information, ready my article: http://franklinhu.com/quarks.html fhuquark
From: PD on 8 Jun 2010 09:47
On Jun 8, 12:04 am, franklinhu <frankli...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Jun 6, 6:48 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? > > I don't think anyone would admit it, but the reason why 1/3 and 2/3 > where chosen was that they first found that the proton had 3 > constituents that made up a +1 positive charge. Then they made the > completely unfounded assumption that a neutron which has about the > same mass as a proton is also made out of 3 constituents which has a > zero charge. So the question is how can a + b + c = 1 and d + e + f = > 0? > > Well, if a & b are 2/3 and c is -1/3, you get +1 > If d & e are -1/3 and f = 2/3, you get 0 > > So if you call the 2/3 charge "up" and the -1/3 "down", then you have > the current state of affairs with fractional quark charges. > > Of course, no one has ever seen such a fractional charge, nor have I > seen any convincing evidence that a neutron consists of 3 > constituents. Based on that, I think this whole quark thing is a bunch > of hooey. I'm afraid your historical information is strongly inaccurate, and your knowledge of experimental data is abysmal. Two things you could pursue investigating, before shooting your mouth off again: 1. Gell-Mann's original quark hypothesis was based on multiple properties (not just electric charge) of whole families of particles, which seemed to fit nicely into tables that matched some representations of the group SU(3). Those properties included so- called "isotopic spin" as well as intrinsic spin, in addition to charge. It was the group structure that suggested three quarks. When Mendeleev put together the periodic table of the elements, there were significant holes where Mendeleev thought there should be an element but there wasn't one known; the discovery of those predicted elements provided tremendous support for the periodic table. Likewise, there was an interesting hole in Gell-Mann's table; the discovery later of the missing omega-minus particle provided tremendous support for SU(3). 2. Deep inelastic scattering experiments had been performed on nucleons and on mesons, starting in the 50's, first on the proton, then on neutron (by scattering off deuterium or helium, and subtracting the contribution from the proton), then on a variety of mesons. DIS provided direct evidence of scattering centers in these hadrons, and their count -- these were called "partons" by Feynman. Thus, we did in fact know that there were three constituents in the neutron four or five decades ago. It was only later that partons were identified with quarks. 3. It was also known that the interaction between the constituents in nucleons (and in fact, in all hadrons) was fundamentally different than the electromagnetic interaction. If they were electrodynamic, then slight modifications of positronium models would have easily mapped to the measured properties of hadrons, but no quantitatively predictive models have succeeded. Nuclear energy states, the mass spectra of the hadrons themselves, isospin selection rules, Bjorken scaling, the exhibition of confinement of quarks, branching ratios to final states in scattering experiments -- all of these have failed to be modeled by any electromagnetic interaction model, but have been successfully reproduced by a strong-interaction quark model. > > It would be much simpler to say a proton consists of 3 constituents > which is 2 whole charge positrons and 1 electron (leaves net charge of > +1) and to say a neutron has 2 constituents which is just 1 positron > and 1 electron. Therefore, we can stick with whole charges and do not > need quarks. Every particle I have looked at can be constructed of > whole charge positrons and electrons and generally everything decays > into (or can be made to decay) into positrons and electrons which > should be considered the fundamental building blocks of matter - not > quarks. Unfortunately, you are ONLY looking at charge states and final products. You are not looking at selection rules of interactions, branching ratios, rates of interactions, energy states, scaling laws in scattering, or any of the important data that *distinguish* the quark model from a quasi-positronium model. That is, you've selected out a handful of results you think you can match your model, and ignored all the results that would indicate where your model fails. > > For for information, ready my article:http://franklinhu.com/quarks.html > > fhuquark |