K so we all know an atom has protons electrons and neutrons. We know those protons and neutrons are made of quarks. A proton has 2 up quarks and one down and a neutron has 1 up and 2 downs (cant remember which is which correct me if im wrong). Now those quarks are MUCH MUCH smaller than the actual proton or neutron they make up. so are the quarks flying around randomly inside a "sphere or probablilty" like the electrons? Why is what they make up so much bigger than what they are.
-
We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.
Whats an atom?
- Thread starter TheoPetro
- Start date
Leper Messiah
Banned
aren't quarks further made up of muons or something liek that? physics and crap like that were always interesting to me, but I have little formal eduaction.
Well, wikipedia says its not so maybe a quark is the smallest it gets.
Well, wikipedia says its not so maybe a quark is the smallest it gets.
Electrons and quarks actually do not have any "size" to them. Since free quarks do not exist (except for maybe 30 milliseconds after the big bang), it isn't currently possible to probe them for their structure, and there is an upper limit for the radius of an electron that has been set by experiment, and nothing else, but as for the relative size of quarks to a particle, quarks are assumed to be smaller than the particles, but that's it.
i thought electrons were like light in the wave particle duality sense so didnt think they actually had a radius.
is there a minimum radius for an electron?
if there are different sizes of electrons could there be electrons of different strengths? like a more negative electron? and is their power, if it does very, dependent on their size?
going along with the size thing could electrons be "born" in the sense stars are born? like does an e- start out smaller and slowly grow? like stars can they die out? (either violently or non-violently)
herm0016
Diamond Member
qwarks and electrons and cows all have one thing in common.. a they are all a wave that behaves like a partical.... sounds weird? yea, sure does. everything has wave properties dependent on the wave length, of course an electrons is very small, and a cows even smaller, too small to measure, just looks like a partical. . . or a cow. . . qwarks are made of something, we just dont know what yet. strings of energy is a theroy. points at which our 4 dimensions collide with anouther world of some positive whole number of dimensions is another theroy. an atom is simple, it is a unit that makes up other things and controls the properties of other things with its weight, charge and size. electrons are in the probibility wave, when we try to measre them they are not.
look up Schroders cat: The theory is, that the cat is simultaneously alive and dead because the experimetor does not know if the cat is dead or alive. Therefore, the experimentor could think the cat is alive when it is really dead, or vice versa. Because of this, the cat is both alive and dead.
look up Schroders cat: The theory is, that the cat is simultaneously alive and dead because the experimetor does not know if the cat is dead or alive. Therefore, the experimentor could think the cat is alive when it is really dead, or vice versa. Because of this, the cat is both alive and dead.
Phantom1983
Member
It's true to say that quarks don't really have a concept of "size" associated with them. It's also true that quarks can't exist as single entities as they have a "strong charge" which must add up to "white".
Basically, a hadron (proton, neutron etc) has three quarks which are "coloured" red, green and blue, which adds up to white, so hadrons can exist. A meson (kaon, pion etc) might have red and ANTI-red, which also adds up to white. So the combination of quarks leads to something with "size", but quarks on their own have no size.
The electron has been historically assumed to have a proper radius, but the concept is becoming outdated with the introduction of probability-based wave mechanics (electrons are now regarded as not being in any place for definite, rather where they are most likely to be).
Basically, a hadron (proton, neutron etc) has three quarks which are "coloured" red, green and blue, which adds up to white, so hadrons can exist. A meson (kaon, pion etc) might have red and ANTI-red, which also adds up to white. So the combination of quarks leads to something with "size", but quarks on their own have no size.
The electron has been historically assumed to have a proper radius, but the concept is becoming outdated with the introduction of probability-based wave mechanics (electrons are now regarded as not being in any place for definite, rather where they are most likely to be).
DrPizza
Administrator Elite Member Goat Whisperer
For what it's worth, discussions of size for such small particles relate more toward our need of some cognitive framework to understand "what's going on." Things like the Bohr model of the atom are just that... models that give us some sort of comprehension of the inner workings of an atom. Regardless, even if we did put a number on the size, I don't believe the human mind can actually comprehend how small it is. (nor can we comprehend very large numbers) I hate to put a numbers on it, but I'd guess that the average human can't comprehend greater than 10^9 or less than 10^-6 (and that might be generous)
sao123
Lifer
Recommended readings below....
I will not insult you by even attempting to explain this, as its way over my head. But good explainations abound....
Quarks
The Quark Model
Quantum ChromoDynamics
Quantum Confinement Theory
I will not insult you by even attempting to explain this, as its way over my head. But good explainations abound....
Quarks
The Quark Model
Quantum ChromoDynamics
Quantum Confinement Theory
CycloWizard
Lifer
That sounds about right. Outside this range (in SI units) becomes difficult to even measure.
I had the opportunity to hear Frank Wilczek, Nobel Prize winner in physics and arguably the greatest contributer to the field of quantum chromodynamics, speak at my uni a few months ago. A version of his speech that he gave at MIT is found here http://mitworld.mit.edu/stream/251/
To answer your question, you can fast forward to about 17:40 if you already have an understanding of the quark/gluons and basic quantum theory. He provides a very eloquent mathematical proof that equates mass to frequency using Ohm's Law and Einstein's theory of relativity. It basically defines mass in terms of the vibration patterns it creates in empty space according to QCD. When comparing the disturbance pattern of nucleons with that of the elementary particles that make up the nucleons, it's shown that they are exactly the same.
To answer your question, you can fast forward to about 17:40 if you already have an understanding of the quark/gluons and basic quantum theory. He provides a very eloquent mathematical proof that equates mass to frequency using Ohm's Law and Einstein's theory of relativity. It basically defines mass in terms of the vibration patterns it creates in empty space according to QCD. When comparing the disturbance pattern of nucleons with that of the elementary particles that make up the nucleons, it's shown that they are exactly the same.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 24K
-
-
