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: franklinhu on 12 Jun 2010 15:33 On Jun 8, 6:47 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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. > I have been searching and searching for a definitive reference about this. I could believe that scattering experiments could detect whether a particle was made up of point particles. I would find it harder to believe that you could detect the number of such particles using such scattering and I have yet to find a reference which shows how you come up with the number 3 for a proton. It would be bad science for me to just blindly accept that this is what they found. Detecting what is going on in neutrons is even harder because you cannot probe a neutron in isolation, you always have to probe a proton/ neutron combination and then try to subtract the effect of the proton. I would think it would be even more difficult to tease out the contituents of just the neutron. Once again, I find no reference concluding that the neutron has 3 constituents based upon the experimental data. I have seen such a thing referred to as in "3 particles were found in the proton and neutron and caused the physics community to accept the quark picture" - but no real explanation for how that was done. I did find that it is not possible to determine the charges based upon scattering experiments, although there was a reference to neutrino experiments at CERN that did so, although I haven't been able to chase down that reference to any papers show how the charges were determined. > 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. > Why on earth would you compare positronium as a model of a proton? A positron is clearly NOT a proton, cannot be compared to a proton in any fashion. The model that I was thinking of for a proton would be bound state of 2 positrons and an electron. Now, if you have any comparisons using that model, that would be interesting. Saying that it doesn't work like positronium is just an invalid straw man that you have put up. Now I haven't tried to come up with all of the other evidence you cite, however, it doesn't mean that it can't and if you want to mention a specific property that you would like explained by my positron/electron model, I'd be happy to try. So far, I haven't seen anything to rule it out. But if you expect me to explain sometihng like a "branching ratio", be sure that the quark model makes a specific prediction and a reference would be helpful. > > > > 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. Sure, show me where my model fails, I'll work on it.... > > > > > > > For for information, ready my article:http://franklinhu.com/quarks.html > > > fhuquark- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: PD on 12 Jun 2010 16:26 On Jun 12, 2:33 pm, franklinhu <frankli...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Jun 8, 6:47 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > 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. > > I have been searching and searching for a definitive reference about > this. I could believe that scattering experiments could detect whether > a particle was made up of point particles. I would find it harder to > believe that you could detect the number of such particles using such > scattering and I have yet to find a reference which shows how you come > up with the number 3 for a proton. It would be bad science for me to > just blindly accept that this is what they found. Where are you searching and searching? The deep inelastic experiments are famous, with the seminal experimenters having won the Nobel Prize, in fact. This should be more than enough to find the principals, which should in turn be more than enough to look up their publication list, which should be more than enough for you to go to where those articles are available for viewing and actually read them. I am completely mystified why this basic look-up skill seems to evade you. > > Detecting what is going on in neutrons is even harder because you > cannot probe a neutron in isolation, you always have to probe a proton/ > neutron combination and then try to subtract the effect of the proton. Yes, which is not that complicated. > I would think it would be even more difficult to tease out the > contituents of just the neutron. Once again, I find no reference > concluding that the neutron has 3 constituents based upon the > experimental data. Then you aren't looking in the right way. Has anyone ever taught you how to research past publications in the library? > I have seen such a thing referred to as in "3 > particles were found in the proton and neutron and caused the physics > community to accept the quark picture" - but no real explanation for > how that was done. And where did you find that statement? Please -- if you tell me that your research is confined to what you can look up with Google, I'll have no sympathy for you. > > I did find that it is not possible to determine the charges based upon > scattering experiments, although there was a reference to neutrino > experiments at CERN that did so, although I haven't been able to chase > down that reference to any papers show how the charges were > determined. If you have a reference to the neutrino experiments, then you should be able to look up the papers. Which neutrino experiments? Which reading pointed you to the neutrino experiments. Again, if you're finding things in wikipedia, then I'm afraid you've not learned to do any real research. > > > 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. > > Why on earth would you compare positronium as a model of a proton? A > positron is clearly NOT a proton, cannot be compared to a proton in > any fashion. I don't see why not. The electromagnetic interaction is well understood, and according to you it would be responsible for the bound state of two positrons and an electron. If so, then the electromagnetic interaction should be able to predict those bound states, their disassociation energy, their parities, their lifetimes, their decay products and the branching ratios into those products. After all, the electromagnetic interaction is able to fully do that for the positron-electron bound state. > The model that I was thinking of for a proton would be > bound state of 2 positrons and an electron. Now, if you have any > comparisons using that model, that would be interesting. Saying that > it doesn't work like positronium is just an invalid straw man that you > have put up. > > Now I haven't tried to come up with all of the other evidence you > cite, however, it doesn't mean that it can't and if you want to > mention a specific property that you would like explained by my > positron/electron model, I'd be happy to try. So far, I haven't seen > anything to rule it out. But if you expect me to explain sometihng > like a "branching ratio", be sure that the quark model makes a > specific prediction and a reference would be helpful. It does! And if you don't know what any of these terms mean (such as "branching ratio") and how the quark model makes predictions about those things, then you certainly need to do some reading. Likewise, you need to understand how the electromagnetic interaction allows predictions for bound states of electrons and positrons, and how you do those calculations. Again, if you don't know how, then you need to do some reading. Not in wikipedia. > > > > > > > > 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. > > Sure, show me where my model fails, I'll work on it.... You haven't done any calculations with your model. Predict the characteristic lifetime of a rho meson. > > > > > > For for information, ready my article:http://franklinhu.com/quarks.html > > > > fhuquark- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > >
From: franklinhu on 16 Jun 2010 16:01 > > Sure, show me where my model fails, I'll work on it.... > > You haven't done any calculations with your model. > Predict the characteristic lifetime of a rho meson. > I cannot find any evidence that the characteristic lifetime of a rho meson can be calculated base on quark theory. Naturally, I could have missed it, but I find it as only a measured quantity - and a rather small one at that. Nor did I find anything to suggest that the lifetimes of any particles can be reasonably calcualted. So, did you just put up a challenge that not even quark theory can address? But since you mentioned the rho meson, here is what I think it is: I have already mentioned my solution for the pion and muon at: http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.particle/msg/1c018c87e4afc2ce Since a rho meson decays into 2 pions, I presume that it is made out of just two pions which I can graphically represent as: (for neutral rho meson): (-+) (-) (+-) (+-)(+)(-+) (for - charged rho meson): (-+) (-) (+-) (+-)(+)(-)(+-) The only thing holding the 2 pions together is just the electrostatic attraction between the central positron/electron. Qualitatively, this would lead me to think that the lifetime should be very short in comparison to a pion which is a neat row of positrons/electrons. I had already explained that the muon lasts much longer since it must wait for an incoming neutrino to complete the reaction which is much less likely than the particle spontaneously falling apart. A table of rho meson properties can be found at: http://pdg.lbl.gov/2008/listings/m009.pdf
From: PD on 17 Jun 2010 13:56 On Jun 16, 3:01 pm, franklinhu <frankli...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > Sure, show me where my model fails, I'll work on it.... > > > You haven't done any calculations with your model. > > Predict the characteristic lifetime of a rho meson. > > I cannot find any evidence that the characteristic lifetime of a rho > meson can be calculated base on quark theory. Naturally, I could have > missed it, but I find it as only a measured quantity - and a rather > small one at that. Nor did I find anything to suggest that the > lifetimes of any particles can be reasonably calcualted. So, did you > just put up a challenge that not even quark theory can address? I find it stunningly unbelievable but completely consistent with your past posts that you are unable to find any documentation anywhere on any of this. If you'd like some background on how the quark model makes lifetime calculations, I might suggest you start with a few introductory textbooks on elementary particles, both theory and experiment: Ferbel and Das, Introduction to Nuclear and Particle Physics Griffiths, Introduction to Elementary Particles Martin and Shaw, Particle Physics Halzen and Martin, Quarks and Leptons Seiden, Particle Physics Cahn and Goldhaber, The Experimental Foundations of Particle Physics Aitchison and Hey, Gauge Theories in Particle Physics Kane, Modern Elementary Particle Physics Perkins, Introduction to High Energy Physics Any 2 or 3 of these will show you the basics of this and have lots of references to journal publications where the results are detailed. > > But since you mentioned the rho meson, here is what I think it is: > > I have already mentioned my solution for the pion and muon at: > > http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.particle/msg/1c018c87e4afc2ce > > Since a rho meson decays into 2 pions, I presume that it is made out > of just two pions No, that would be a bad premise. Just because a particle decays into daughter particles does not mean the parent is composed of the daughter particles. For example, the lambda baryon decays into each of these channels proton + pi-minus neutron + pi-zero neutron + gamma proton + pi-minus + gamma proton + electron + anti-electron-neutrino proton + muon + anti-muon-neutrino Now, given all of these daughter products combinations, what would be your premise as to the composition of the lambda? > which I can graphically represent as: > > (for neutral rho meson): > (-+) (-) (+-) > (+-)(+)(-+) > > (for - charged rho meson): > (-+) (-) (+-) > (+-)(+)(-)(+-) > > The only thing holding the 2 pions together is just the electrostatic > attraction between the central positron/electron. Qualitatively, this > would lead me to think that the lifetime should be very short in > comparison to a pion which is a neat row of positrons/electrons. I had > already explained that the muon lasts much longer since it must wait > for an incoming neutrino to complete the reaction which is much less > likely than the particle spontaneously falling apart. > > A table of rho meson properties can be found at:http://pdg.lbl.gov/2008/listings/m009.pdf
From: franklinhu on 17 Jun 2010 15:58
On Jun 17, 10:56 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jun 16, 3:01 pm, franklinhu <frankli...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > Sure, show me where my model fails, I'll work on it.... > > > > You haven't done any calculations with your model. > > > Predict the characteristic lifetime of a rho meson. > > > I cannot find any evidence that the characteristic lifetime of a rho > > meson can be calculated base on quark theory. Naturally, I could have > > missed it, but I find it as only a measured quantity - and a rather > > small one at that. Nor did I find anything to suggest that the > > lifetimes of any particles can be reasonably calcualted. So, did you > > just put up a challenge that not even quark theory can address? > > I find it stunningly unbelievable but completely consistent with your > past posts that you are unable to find any documentation anywhere on > any of this. If you'd like some background on how the quark model > makes lifetime calculations, I might suggest you start with a few > introductory textbooks on elementary particles, both theory and > experiment: > Ferbel and Das, Introduction to Nuclear and Particle Physics > Griffiths, Introduction to Elementary Particles > Martin and Shaw, Particle Physics > Halzen and Martin, Quarks and Leptons > Seiden, Particle Physics > Cahn and Goldhaber, The Experimental Foundations of Particle Physics > Aitchison and Hey, Gauge Theories in Particle Physics > Kane, Modern Elementary Particle Physics > Perkins, Introduction to High Energy Physics > > Any 2 or 3 of these will show you the basics of this and have lots of > references to journal publications where the results are detailed. > > > > > But since you mentioned the rho meson, here is what I think it is: > > > I have already mentioned my solution for the pion and muon at: > > >http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.particle/msg/1c018c87e4afc2ce > > > Since a rho meson decays into 2 pions, I presume that it is made out > > of just two pions > > No, that would be a bad premise. > > Just because a particle decays into daughter particles does not mean > the parent is composed of the daughter particles. > > For example, the lambda baryon decays into each of these channels > proton + pi-minus > neutron + pi-zero > neutron + gamma > proton + pi-minus + gamma > proton + electron + anti-electron-neutrino > proton + muon + anti-muon-neutrino > > Now, given all of these daughter products combinations, what would be > your premise as to the composition of the lambda? > > I would say that a lambda consists of 4 poselectron (positron/ electron) electrons arranged such that thier + and - components all match up. I believe it is this symmetric arrangement which gives the lambda its long life time, not the presense of a strange quark. Lambda (+-)(+-) (-+)(-+) Here are the decay products (+-+) Proton (-+) (-) (+-) pi-minus (+-) Neutron (+-)(+)(-)(+-) pi-zero (+-) Neutron 3 gammas from (+)(-) anhilliation I think we lose 3 poselectron pairs to gamma anhilliation - I don't know how many gammas are obseved, but I would guess 3. (+-+) Proton (-+) (-) (+-) pi-minus 1 gamma from neutrino anhilliation Here, we only lose one. (+-+) Proton (-) electron 2 (+-) neutrino Here we lose 2 poselectron pairs to the surrounidng aether. But they do not separate an annhillate into gammas. I wouldn't know why they wouldn't do that in this case, but it is a possiblity, perhaps related to being and even number lost. (+-+) Proton (-) (+-) muon (+-) neutrino Here we lose 1 poselectron to the aether. > > > which I can graphically represent as: > > > (for neutral rho meson): > > (-+) (-) (+-) > > (+-)(+)(-+) > > > (for - charged rho meson): > > (-+) (-) (+-) > > (+-)(+)(-)(+-) > > > The only thing holding the 2 pions together is just the electrostatic > > attraction between the central positron/electron. Qualitatively, this > > would lead me to think that the lifetime should be very short in > > comparison to a pion which is a neat row of positrons/electrons. I had > > already explained that the muon lasts much longer since it must wait > > for an incoming neutrino to complete the reaction which is much less > > likely than the particle spontaneously falling apart. > > > A table of rho meson properties can be found at:http://pdg.lbl.gov/2008/listings/m009.pdf- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - |