Re: A question pertaining to gluons 'violating' inverse square law
From: Monitek (monitek_at_aol.com)
Date: 08/11/04
- Next message: Eric Gisin: "Re: E <=> MC^2 generally ...and also inside living things!"
- Previous message: Don Lancaster: "Re: E <=> MC^2 generally ...and also inside living things!"
- Next in thread: Igor: "Re: A question pertaining to gluons 'violating' inverse square law"
- Maybe reply: Igor: "Re: A question pertaining to gluons 'violating' inverse square law"
- Reply: Australopithecus Afarensis: "Re: A question pertaining to gluons 'violating' inverse square law"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: 11 Aug 2004 20:58:30 GMT
>From: "Victor Boshnyak" ILAR@comcast.net
>Date: 23/07/2004 19:41 GMT Daylight Time
>Message-id: <TZcMc.150658$IQ4.3316@attbi_s02>
>
>I was wondering if anyone would be able to explain the nature of the strong
>nuclear field in a bit more detail to me. In particular I am wondering a
>couple of things:
> 1) Why does the strong field increase in intensity with distance? To the
>best of my (very limited, I am fresh out of HS but have an intent to pursue
>theoretical physics and mathematics) knowledge, the reson on the quantum
>level that a field is less intense over distance is that the density of the
>carrier particles is highest closest to the source. so a lightbulb is dimmer
>further away becasue the photons are spread over a larger area. Correct me
>if am wrong here, perhaps I am using a far oversimplified definition which
>is inhibiting my understading. At any rate, I dont see how a gluon based
>field could be exempt from this purely geometric law.
> 2) Has the greater intensity of a gluon field at a distance ever been
>proven (either experimentally or theoretically, except as a convenient way
>to explain why we never see 'single' quarks)?
> 3) If not, or if inconclusive, is it possible that quarks are a kind of
>(and here my terminology breaks down, as I have no clue what I am talking
>about) a wave that needs two more to resonate with to exist? (kind of like
>how a magnetic field collapses to electric then back to magnetic and so on
>within a photon, [at least thats how I learned it] Thus a quark needs to get
>balanced out by another quark, and otherwise it will not form of unbind if
>it is bound to another quark? )
>
> Sorry for all the questions, but I have a lot of ideas on my mind, and a
>lot of questions that have been brewing for a while now.
>
> Thank you for your help,
>
> Victor
You seem to be thinking along the lines that I was thinking. So have a look at
what I came up with and see what you think.
http://members.aol.com/medusa1989/theatom.html
Monitek (Arden Barker)
- Next message: Eric Gisin: "Re: E <=> MC^2 generally ...and also inside living things!"
- Previous message: Don Lancaster: "Re: E <=> MC^2 generally ...and also inside living things!"
- Next in thread: Igor: "Re: A question pertaining to gluons 'violating' inverse square law"
- Maybe reply: Igor: "Re: A question pertaining to gluons 'violating' inverse square law"
- Reply: Australopithecus Afarensis: "Re: A question pertaining to gluons 'violating' inverse square law"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|