Re: The identity of quarks
- From: "Chris" <me@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 02 Jan 2007 17:57:58 GMT
Surely you don't believe all this jive, I invented quarks for fun, I used to
go round the corridors of cern flapping my folded arms squawking "I'm a
quark - find me".
It occures in the loony land of The reverend dobson "the hunting of the
snark".
Nuclear physics is like that, its a loony wonderland, I invented "charm"
too I think they lost that one.
The original model was a wave - mechanical one, but they said it was too
complicated so we did a quantum mechanics > particle conversion and invented
the names. It all started with a discussion of the structure of a proton,
they did not know it had one, so they banged them with electrons and other
protons and looked at the scattering pattern, a diffraction pattern, and saw
the hard objects inside. Like lau.
Unfortunately giant insects like me are not given any credit. Only humans
get anything here. It is to do with the church they say I've committed some
terrible crime. It might only be the speculation of the existance of alien
life or supporting evoltution. They accuse me of something I was framed up
for and they know and the forensic tests say so... Well that is what it like
to be a giant insect here.
In fact they need a scapegoat for the crimes they commit routinely all their
lives.
In the name of Jesus.
Chris.
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1167758054.662649.117770@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Jan 1, 2:05 pm, "Tareq" <ask.about.is...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
The pion consists of two quarks. When we say that the wavefunction of
the neutral pion is (uu'-dd')/sqrt(2), where u' and d' are the
antiquarks of the up and down quarks, doesn't that seem strange to you,
that a superposition of two-quarks states is still a two-quark state ?
Nope. If you do a scattering experiment, you will find two scatters at
any given time. Whether they are u quarks or d quarks will vary from
scatter to scatter.
Is the identity of quarks lost in this description? Shouldn't the
fundamental constituents of matter have well-defined identities?
No, and this is one of the hardest things to deal with in quantum
mechanics. We had gotten firmly used to assuming that *well-defined*
objects are made up of *well-defined* objects. Quantum mechanics has,
for the last 75 years, consistently and successfully repudiated that
assumption.
Suppose you are going to describe this particle to your child, what
will you tell him or her about its constituents?
That it is made of quarks and gluons, that there are two quarks that
dominate everything we can see, but that the total understanding of the
pion has to include a varying "sea" of other quarks and gluons, and
that depending on when we look at the pion the identity of the quarks
might change.
PD
.
- References:
- The identity of quarks
- From: Tareq
- Re: The identity of quarks
- From: PD
- The identity of quarks
- Prev by Date: Re: The identity of quarks
- Next by Date: "Relativity and Reasonableness Tests"
- Previous by thread: Re: The identity of quarks
- Next by thread: Re: The identity of quarks
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
|
