:evil:
Quote from: "Solitary"A wave function has never been observed , and neither has a quantum field, or even a classical electromagnetic field.
A sheet of white paper, a bar magnet and iron filings. There's your classical electromagnetic field!
:evil:
Quote from: "Solitary"A sheet of paper is not an electromagnetic field or quantum field. You would be seeing the metal filings forming a pattern that represents the field not the field itself.
Nobody's ever seen gravity either, but... um... yeah... :-k
Sounds more like a philosophy of science question than an science one.
(//http://www.startrek.com/uploads/assets/db_articles/0379b23e9845c9c652488c13f7bb557fc62a3642.jpg)
Quote from: "Solitary"A sheet of paper is not an electromagnetic field or quantum field.
Are you yanking my chain?
Quote from: "Solitary"You would be seeing the metal filings forming a pattern that represents the field not the field itself.
Seriously?
I don't suppose you saw the point I was making whistle past? I can't show you the actual field. You're not really capable of sensing it.
Quote from: "Solitary"The electromagnetic field may be thought of in a 'coarse' way. Experiments reveal that in some circumstances electromagnetic energy transfer is better described as being carried in the form of packets called quanta (in this case, photons) with a fixed frequency. Photons enable us to see, but we can observe them directly. Solitary
Yeah, you can't see individual photons. That's why we have photomultiplier tubes. They can directly interact with a photon.
You can't see individual electrons. But you can watch them arc between two wires. You can catch them in a penning trap. You can send them whizzing around 25km of underground tunnels and slam them into a target.
You can't see individual yeast either, but I can throw a handful of it at you.
Quote from: "Jason78"Quote from: "Solitary"A sheet of paper is not an electromagnetic field or quantum field.
Are you yanking my chain?
Quote from: "Solitary"You would be seeing the metal filings forming a pattern that represents the field not the field itself.
Seriously?
I don't suppose you saw the point I was making whistle past? I can't show you the actual field. You're not really capable of sensing it.
Quote from: "Solitary"The electromagnetic field may be thought of in a 'coarse' way. Experiments reveal that in some circumstances electromagnetic energy transfer is better described as being carried in the form of packets called quanta (in this case, photons) with a fixed frequency. Photons enable us to see, but we can observe them directly. Solitary
Yeah, you can't see individual photons. That's why we have photomultiplier tubes. They can directly interact with a photon.
You can't see individual electrons. But you can watch them arc between two wires. You can catch them in a penning trap. You can send them whizzing around 25km of underground tunnels and slam them into a target.
You can't see individual yeast either, but I can throw a handful of it at you.
QuoteA sheet of white paper, a bar magnet and iron filings. There's your classical electromagnetic field!
You really believe that, fine with me. Detecting an electromagnet "field" or quantum "field" is not the same as seeing either of them. I can have a sensor in the road that can detect a car I can't see too. I'm not yanking your chain, but I'm starting wonder whether you are mine.
QuoteI don't suppose you saw the point I was making whistle past?
No I sure didn't! What was your point?
Victor J. Stenger an adjunct professor of philosophy and emeritus professor of "physics" and he agrees with me, as well as a friend that is an Engineering physicist. Show me how a sheet of paper is a classical electromagnetic field. I didn't say a field doesn't exist, I said they can't be seen. Do I need to add: with the human eye with no help? Solitary
Quote from: "Solitary"A wave function has never been observed , and neither has a quantum field, or even a classical electromagnetic field.
Functions and fields don't reflect light, so they can't be 'seen'. Are your thoughts real? They can't be seen either. Did yesterday actually happen? You can't 'see' it.
Your statement is incompetent (meaning that it's not the kind of statement that can be responded to). Functions and fields can be 'observed' - which doesn't necessarily require vision. The pattern of iron filings on a piece of paper with a magnet under it allows us to observe the magnetic field. (Remember, you don't actually 'see' anything. The light that reflects from it impinges on your retinas, and your brain interprets the resulting change in the rhodopsin in your retinas as indicative of what the object looks like. So using your own argument, nothing exists, since vision is merely the brain's interpretation of a second-hand analogue of reality, it's not a direct 'seeing'.)
Quarks have been observed in much the same way as you 'observe' the monitor you're reading this on - sort of indirectly. The question of whether they actually exist is no more a question than the one of whether your monitor exists. (Touching the monitor doesn't change anything - the 'feeling' of the monitor is merely your brain's interpretation of chemical changes in the nerve endings in your fingers.)
I don't understand quantum mechanics or fields. And if I remember right, neither did Richard Feynman.
At any rate, is there a point with this? Maybe I am just too ignorant to see one, but it seems like all that is going on is an argument about how many angels can sit on the head of a pin. Until there is more data, which is being collected almost everyday, we can't really tell what is going on in quantum fields. IMHO.
Quote from: "Solitary"The question of quarks being real is still an open question.
It's pretty much settled at this point that they do really exist. Not only do our theories work well only when we include them, but when we fire high-energy electrons at hadrons, you see three points of deflection in baryons, and two in mesons, exactly as our theories say they should.
Remember that the fact that we don't find quarks
in isolation doesn't mean that they cannot be detected by other means.
Quote from: "Solitary"Applying metaphysics to quantum mechanics, the wave function, a type of quantum field is real and so its simultaneous collapse throughout the universe violates relativity that has been tested to be true many times.
Except that these collapses don't transfer
information, (the fact that relativity was 'violated' only appears after you compare notes) so it's all good.
Quote from: "Solitary"The wave function is simply a human-invented mathematical object that can do anything its inventors want it to, so long as any calculations made agree with data.
You've just described the function of every piece of mathematics in science.
Quote from: "Solitary"A wave function has never been observed , and neither has a quantum field, or even a classical electromagnetic field. All detectors ever register are localized hits that look very much like particles.
Yep. And you've never seen the inside of a brick, either. Even when you break one, all you see is an additional surface created when you broke it. Yet we still think that bricks have insides.
QuoteYour statement is incompetent
Really?
By exploring magnets, students are indirectly introduced to the idea that there are forces that occur on earth which cannot be seen. This idea can then be developed into an understanding that objects, such as the earth or electrically charged objects, can pull on other objects. It is important that students get a sense of electric and magnetic force fields (as well as of gravity) and of some simple relations between magnetic and electric currents (Benchmarks for Science Literacy, p. 93.) In grades 3-5, students should have had opportunities to observe and explore the lines of force, the attraction and the repelling forces that all magnets exhibit in activities such as those found in Magnets
In this lesson, students will see evidence of the magnetic field of a small magnet.
Planning Ahead
Gather the materials for both parts of the activity and perform the experiments yourself before you do them with the students. If you are using loose filings, clean them up very carefully. To pick up the filings easily, slip your magnet inside a plastic bag. Run it over the loose filings and it will pick them up easily. To remove them from the magnet, simply remove the bag. Store iron filings separately from the magnets so they won't become demagnetized.
Motivation
Begin by asking students to discuss their experiences with magnets. More than likely, students have conducted simple activities with magnets in earlier grades. Ask students to describe what magnets are and how they work. This discussion will help you assess students' naïve explanations of magnetism, which will be helpful as you guide them to more scientific explanations.
Development
The first part of this lesson is a hands-on exploration of magnetic fields using the Exploring Magnetic Fields: Activity 1 student sheet.
Allow students to work in pairs or small groups to carry out the activity. Each student, however, should fill out the student sheet. When students have finished, ask students to describe what happened. Ask one or more students to share their drawings of the patterns made by the iron fillings with the class.
Then discuss these questions:
Were the patterns and shapes formed by the iron filings the same no matter how many times you did the experiment?
What do you think caused this pattern?
After students have shared their ideas, explain that the pattern they saw was the outline of the magnetic field around the magnet. Around every magnet there is an invisible field called a magnetic field. This field is what attracts items such as paper clips and nails to the magnet. Although the magnetic field is invisible, the iron filings indicate where it is because they line up with the field.
Have students continue with their exploration of magnetic fields, using Exploring Magnetic Fields: Activity 2 student sheet.
Please note that students will repeat part of the first activity so that they can compare the magnetic field created by one bar magnet to that of other combinations and types of magnets.
After students have completed the activity, have them discuss their findings by reviewing the questions on the Student Sheet and sharing their drawings of what they observed.
To reinforce the concepts in the lesson, ask the following questions:
Could you see the magnetic field? (No, the magnetic field is invisible. What was observed was the pattern made by the field.)
Were the field lines the same for each type of magnet? (The field lines you see will be different when you use different magnets.)
Where does the field seem to be the strongest? (Magnets have two poles; the field lines spread out from the north pole and circle back around to the south pole. Iron filings line up along the lines of magnetic force. The field is strongest at the poles; this is where the iron filings tend to be the most concentrated.)
How was this activity similar to that in Part 1? How was it different? What more did you learn?
Although the thin layer of iron filings we use in this activity only shows the magnetic field in two dimensions, it really is three-dimensional. The lines of force in the field extend upward and downward as well as from side to side. In fact, you can see some of these lines near the pole of the magnet where some of the filings seem to stand up straight in the air. If we had a way to see it, these lines would curve upward and then back down toward the other pole of the magnet, just like those we can see in the filings. The earth's magnetic field looks very much the same, although it is much larger.
Assessment
After students have thoroughly discussed the activities in the student sheet, refer students to Magnetic Fields. Instruct students to read this article and use what they have read to explain what happened in the activity. This will help them to refine their ideas about magnetism and to express their explanations in a more scientific way.
Extensions
Magnetic Fields: History discusses the history of magnetism and includes directions for conducting the experiment done by Hans Christian Oersted in which he discovered that an electrical current creates a magnetic field.
Magnets Part 1 and Magnets Part 2, from the Fermi Lab's High Energy Physics Made Painless Website, further extends the ideas in this lesson and discusses the use of magnets in particle accelerators.
Magnetic Shielding, from the Exploratorium, is an activity that extends the ideas in this lesson.
So, this is for grades 3-5, and the Reponses to my post show that a lot of you never understood what you were doing in science classes. Anyone still want to say they can see an electromagnetic field and that my statements are incompetent? :popcorn: :roll: Solitary
Yeah, gladly. If you believe that magnetism is real, then the same logic works to prove that quarks are real. If you don't believe that magnetism is real, I don't really know what more to say.
You cannot claim "magnetism is real even though we cannot see it but quarks are not real because we cannot see them" without fundamentally breaking down your own argument. Either it's irrelevant to a thing's existance whether or not we can "see" it (which gives us modern science) or only things we can see are real (which would bring us back to even before primitive religion, as even primitive human beings understood that things you couldn't see were still there)
We have observed quarks interacting with the real world. We can make predictions based on their existance, and they come true. They are "real" for any scientific definition of the word "real". If their observance breaks any other law of physics (which, according to Hakurei they don't, and she usually knows what she's talking about) then this simply points out that the other law is wrong. Because regardless of whether "quarks" are real or their theory is sound, we have still made an observation that breaks a physical law.
Quote from: "Plu"Yeah, gladly. If you believe that magnetism is real, then the same logic works to prove that quarks are real. If you don't believe that magnetism is real, I don't really know what more to say.
You cannot claim "magnetism is real even though we cannot see it but quarks are not real because we cannot see them" without fundamentally breaking down your own argument. Either it's irrelevant to a thing's existance whether or not we can "see" it (which gives us modern science) or only things we can see are real (which would bring us back to even before primitive religion, as even primitive human beings understood that things you couldn't see were still there)
We have observed quarks interacting with the real world. We can make predictions based on their existance, and they come true. They are "real" for any scientific definition of the word "real". If their observance breaks any other law of physics (which, according to Hakurei they don't, and she usually knows what she's talking about) then this simply points out that the other law is wrong. Because regardless of whether "quarks" are real or their theory is sound, we have still made an observation that breaks a physical law.
"Gladly?" Jesus H. Christ!! Show me where I said quarks aren't real, or magnetism isn't real. I said one cannot SEE electromagnetic fields or quarks. You can observe the interactions, but you can't actually see them. And I never said a word about any theory being wrong either. Do all you critics just read the heading and not read the whole paragraph? Like you said: "They are real for any scientific definition of the word real." They still can't be seen.
Quarks are the current "best fit" theory for what we think we know about the neutrons, protons, and other mesons. They are just as "real" as point-like particles can be.
Might be something inside the quarks, but right now, the energies required to figure them out are beyond today's technology.
According to Super String Thoery, quarks will be found to be made of tiny vibrational modes of energy, folds in 11 dimensional space-time. But whether this fits the data better remains to be seen.
How do scientists know the existence of Quarks in protons and neutrons? And how do they know they are fundamental particles?
A:
,That's a tough question to answer since no one has actually seen a real isolated quark You have to rely on indirect evidence. Fortunately there is plenty of that.
Just as Ernest Rutherford determined that the nucleus of the atom was a small compact object by observing alpha particles back-scattering from it, today's physicists perform similar experiments by scattering high energy electrons off of protons.
The resulting angular distribution of these scattered electrons can be explained only if there are tiny constituents inside the proton (as well as neutron). Additional evidence comes from the observed patterns of mesons and baryons that are produced at high energy accelerators. These patterns can be neatly explained by assuming a few types of fundamental quarks that combine with each other to form the observed particles.
As to whether the quarks are made of still smaller sub-quark things, we don't know for sure but as of now there is no evidence for that.
How can one be so confident of the quark model when no one has ever seen an isolated quark? There are good reasons for the lack of direct observation. Apparently the color force does not drop off with distance like the other observed forces. It is postutated that it may actually increase with distance at the rate of about 1 GeV per fermi.
A free quark is not observed because by the time the separation is on an observable scale, the energy is far above the pair production energy for quark-antiquark pairs. For the U and D quarks the masses are 10s of MeV so pair production would occur for distances much less than a fermi. You would expect a lot of mesons (quark-antiquark pairs) in very high energy collision experiments and that is what is observed.
Basically, you can't see an isolated quark because the color force does not let them go, and the energy required to separate them produces quark-antiquark pairs long before they are far enough apart to observe separately.
One kind of visualization of quark confinement is called the "bag model". One visualizes the quarks as contained in an elastic bag which allows the quarks to move freely around, as long as you don't try to pull them further apart. But if you try to pull a quark out, the bag stretches and resists.
Another way of looking at quark confinement is expressed by Rohlf. "When we try to pull a quark out of a proton, for example by striking the quark with another energetic particle, the quark experiences a potential energy barrier from the strong interaction that increases with distance." As the example of alpha decay demonstrates, having a barrier higher than the particle energy does not prevent the escape of the particle - quantum mechanical tunneling gives a finite probability for a 6 MeV alpha particle to get through a 30 MeV high energy barrier.
But the energy barrier for the alpha particle is thin enough for tunneling to be effective. In the case of the barrier facing the quark, the energy barrier does not drop off with distance, but in fact increases.
In 1977, an experimental group at Fermilab led by Leon Lederman discovered a new resonance at 9.4 GeV/c^2 which was interpreted as a bottom-antibottom quark pair and called the Upsilon meson. From this experiment, the mass of the bottom quark is implied to be about 5 GeV/c^2. The reaction being studied was
where N was a copper or platinum nucleus. The spectrometer had a muon-pair mass resolution of about 2%, which allowed them to measure an excess of events at 9.4 GeV/c^2. This resonance has been subsequently studied at other accelerators with a detailed investigation of the bound states of the bottom-antibottom meson.
Next! :roll: Solitary
Quote from: "the_antithesis"[ Image (//http://www.startrek.com/uploads/assets/db_articles/0379b23e9845c9c652488c13f7bb557fc62a3642.jpg) ]
Ferengi?
This thread:
Solitary: Are quarks real? No one has ever seen one!
Everyone: Yes, because we have observed them through indirect methods.
Solitary: FOOLS! I tricked you! You thought I was saying quarks aren't real, but they are! We can observe them through INDIRECT methods!
I would not call them fools anymore than I would a religious fanatic or intellectually snobs that went to college, or teenagers that know it all. :wink: :-$ [-X That isn't nice. :rollin: I can believe that just by saying one cannot see fields would cause so much misunderstanding, backlash, and personal attacks on my competence. Of course the same thing happens when teaching 3rd. and 5th. grade students to the teachers. :roll: Solitary
Quote from: "missingnocchi"Quote from: "the_antithesis"[ Image (//http://www.startrek.com/uploads/assets/db_articles/0379b23e9845c9c652488c13f7bb557fc62a3642.jpg) ]
Ferengi?
This thread:
Solitary: Are quarks real? No one has ever seen one!
Everyone: Yes, because we have observed them through indirect methods.
Solitary: FOOLS! I tricked you! You thought I was saying quarks aren't real, but they are! We can observe them through INDIRECT methods!
=D> Thanks! Finally someone that can understand what they read and understands the point I was trying to make: No one has ever seen a field or quark period.
Is this one of those "you can't see the wind" kind of bullshit?
Quote from: "Solitary"Basically, you can't see an isolated quark because the color force does not let them go, and the energy required to separate them produces quark-antiquark pairs long before they are far enough apart to observe separately.
Correction. You cannot see
isolated quarks because of this phenomenon (called "confinement"). However, they scatter high-energy electrons, just like isolated particles. In other words, just like you do in an electron microscope, except the energy of the electrons is much higher than in those experiments.
We knew about the
element aluminum about two decades before the
elemental form was isolated.
Quote from: "Solitary"Another way of looking at quark confinement is expressed by Rohlf. "When we try to pull a quark out of a proton, for example by striking the quark with another energetic particle, the quark experiences a potential energy barrier from the strong interaction that increases with distance." As the example of alpha decay demonstrates, having a barrier higher than the particle energy does not prevent the escape of the particle - quantum mechanical tunneling gives a finite probability for a 6 MeV alpha particle to get through a 30 MeV high energy barrier.
But the energy barrier for the alpha particle is thin enough for tunneling to be effective. In the case of the barrier facing the quark, the energy barrier does not drop off with distance, but in fact increases.
In 1977, an experimental group at Fermilab led by Leon Lederman discovered a new resonance at 9.4 GeV/c^2 which was interpreted as a bottom-antibottom quark pair and called the Upsilon meson. From this experiment, the mass of the bottom quark is implied to be about 5 GeV/c^2. The reaction being studied was
where N was a copper or platinum nucleus. The spectrometer had a muon-pair mass resolution of about 2%, which allowed them to measure an excess of events at 9.4 GeV/c^2. This resonance has been subsequently studied at other accelerators with a detailed investigation of the bound states of the bottom-antibottom meson.
Next! :roll: Solitary
I know you snipped this out of an article. There's a blank spot where an equation should be.
And what are you arguing here? Are you arguing that quarks do exist, or are they just mathematical conveniences? As far as I'm concerned, the existence of quarks is as established as anything else in science, or even common sense.
Quote from: "missingnocchi"Quote from: "the_antithesis"[ Image (//http://www.startrek.com/uploads/assets/db_articles/0379b23e9845c9c652488c13f7bb557fc62a3642.jpg) ]
Ferengi?
Don't worry. I didn't watch Deep Space Nine, either. Fans tell me it got good during the third season but I couldn't get through the first. That's why fans are terrible people.
But Quark isn't real as he's really Armin Shimerman.
(//http://www.dailyactor.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/Armin-Shimerman-324x247-custom.jpg)
Quote from: "the_antithesis"Quote from: "missingnocchi"Quote from: "the_antithesis"[ Image (//http://www.startrek.com/uploads/assets/db_articles/0379b23e9845c9c652488c13f7bb557fc62a3642.jpg) ]
Ferengi?
Don't worry. I didn't watch Deep Space Nine, either. Fans tell me it got good during the third season but I couldn't get through the first. That's why fans are terrible people.
But Quark isn't real as he's really Armin Shimerman.
[ Image (//http://www.dailyactor.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/Armin-Shimerman-324x247-custom.jpg) ]
I heard that Deep Space Nine was ripped off of Babylon 5. I'm not sure if that makes me want to see it more, or less. Pretty much everything rips off something, but in this situation it seems more blatant (Babylon 5 was originally pitched to Paramount, who rejected it and then made DS9 with the ideas.) On the other hand, it means that DS9 is very similar to Babylon 5, which is good. I guess in the end, though, I don't really need a second space-station-based TV sci-fi epic.
Most of this seems kind of pointless. I mean, whether or not quarks actually exist is irrelevant to the theories involved, in the sense that regardless the concept is explanatorily useful for subatomic models' predictive capabilities. It's possible (though perhaps quite unlikely) that they'll be dumped the way the luminiferous aether and absolute space and time were a century ago (William Lane Craig notwithstanding).
Quote from: "missingnocchi"I heard that Deep Space Nine was ripped off of Babylon 5.
The two shows are similar in that they take place on a space station rather than a ship. Beyond that, I really don't know. By season three the started the Dominion War storyline which may be similar to the political intrigue and bullshit bullshit bullshit of Babylon 5. I wouldn't know. I didn't get past the pilot. but I suppose at that point the politics and war situation of both shows are similar because politics and war are remarkably similar.
But then, I didn't watch either show. I just knew enough to make a lame joke which has now become incredibly lame. Like a lameness singularity. Lameularity.
:Hangman: Solitary
Quote from: "Hakurei Reimu"Quote from: "Solitary"Basically, you can't see an isolated quark because the color force does not let them go, and the energy required to separate them produces quark-antiquark pairs long before they are far enough apart to observe separately.
However, they scatter high-energy electrons, just like isolated particles. In other words, just like you do in an electron microscope, except the energy of the electrons is much higher than in those experiments.
We knew about the element aluminum about two decades before the elemental form was isolated.
Quote from: "Solitary"Another way of looking at quark confinement is expressed by Rohlf. "When we try to pull a quark out of a proton, for example by striking the quark with another energetic particle, the quark experiences a potential energy barrier from the strong interaction that increases with distance." As the example of alpha decay demonstrates, having a barrier higher than the particle energy does not prevent the escape of the particle - quantum mechanical tunneling gives a finite probability for a 6 MeV alpha particle to get through a 30 MeV high energy barrier.
But the energy barrier for the alpha particle is thin enough for tunneling to be effective. In the case of the barrier facing the quark, the energy barrier does not drop off with distance, but in fact increases.
In 1977, an experimental group at Fermilab led by Leon Lederman discovered a new resonance at 9.4 GeV/c^2 which was interpreted as a bottom-antibottom quark pair and called the Upsilon meson. From this experiment, the mass of the bottom quark is implied to be about 5 GeV/c^2. The reaction being studied was
where N was a copper or platinum nucleus. The spectrometer had a muon-pair mass resolution of about 2%, which allowed them to measure an excess of events at 9.4 GeV/c^2. This resonance has been subsequently studied at other accelerators with a detailed investigation of the bound states of the bottom-antibottom meson.
Next! :roll: Solitary
I know you snipped this out of an article. There's a blank spot where an equation should be.
And what are you arguing here? Are you arguing that quarks do exist, or are they just mathematical conveniences? As far as I'm concerned, the existence of quarks is as established as anything else in science, or even common sense.
Since I don't have math symbols on my key board that would be a logical assumption. This is the last to last time I say that a field and quarks can't be seen. I never said they don't exist. Why is this so hard to convey to the critics here. And what in the hell is the difference if copy and paste is used to make a point? I'm really getting tired of the innuendoes being made about my common sense, incompetence, and being wrong when one of the very top physicist agrees with me.
Quote
Correction. You cannot see isolated quarks because of this phenomenon (called "confinement"). And that is because of the color force confines it, is it not?
I'm also tired that people here don't take the time to investigate what I have posted and just react to it negatively.
Fields and quarks can't be seen even if they exist. That's all I have said, show me evidence I'm wrong from any reliable source like a real physicist in quantum mechanics. Ask Hawking what he thinks about it. He takes questions over the internet. I have never ran into so many pedantic jerks that can't comprehend a simple statement accept at theist forums. :roll: Solitary
Quote from: "Youssuf Ramadan"Quote from: "Solitary"A sheet of paper is not an electromagnetic field or quantum field. You would be seeing the metal filings forming a pattern that represents the field not the field itself.
Nobody's ever seen gravity either, but... um... yeah... :-k
I find the question in the title fucking absurd, and you aptly refuted it with this.
This is the same mental masturbation that causes idiots to say "If a tree falls in the woods and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?"
YES, just like you know toilets exist in Japan, but you cant hear the person shitting or pissing and flushing, when you live in America.
Gravity is real and quarks are real, and so is evolution.
Quote from: "Solitary"Correction. You cannot see isolated quarks because of this phenomenon (called "confinement"). And that is because of the color force confines it, is it not?
"You cannot see isolated quarks" ? "you cannot see quarks."
We
can see quarks, as well as any other subatomic particle. They're confined in hadrons, but you can bounce high-energy electrons off of them. You can't extract them from the bags, but you can peer into them. We've done the experiments. They're there, and we can see them.
Whatever! Solitary
Quote from: "Hakurei Reimu"Quote from: "Solitary"Correction. You cannot see isolated quarks because of this phenomenon (called "confinement"). And that is because of the color force confines it, is it not?
"You cannot see isolated quarks" ? "you cannot see quarks."
We can see quarks, as well as any other subatomic particle. They're confined in hadrons, but you can bounce high-energy electrons off of them. You can't extract them from the bags, but you can peer into them. We've done the experiments. They're there, and we can see them.
Well, you can't actually
see subatomic particles - in the sense of looking directly at it - can you? I mean, we can't see atoms themselves in that way if I remember correctly, as it would (presumably) make depicting accurate atomic models easier.
The next thing I'm going to hear is: "we have seen gravitons by the way they make us stick to the earth. :roll: #-o :-k How could you see anything that is smaller than a photon of light because it is a "mental" concept? The light would knock it out of sight. And you can't see the wave function because it is a mathematical(mental) concept. Just like you can't see God because He is a mental concept. Or can you? :roll: Solitary
Quote from: "Hakurei Reimu"Quote from: "Solitary"Correction. You cannot see isolated quarks because of this phenomenon (called "confinement"). And that is because of the color force confines it, is it not?
"You cannot see isolated quarks" ? "you cannot see quarks."
We can see quarks, as well as any other subatomic particle. They're confined in hadrons, but you can bounce high-energy electrons off of them. You can't extract them from the bags, but you can peer into them. We've done the experiments. They're there, and we can see them.
Except for Top quarks. They are too big to hadronize, because they are so unstable they decay before they get the chance.
My bad! You really can see subatomic particles, here is proof:
(//http://i.imgur.com/JcigkMI.jpg)
(//http://i.imgur.com/NAkWpWS.jpg)
(//http://i.imgur.com/uc8H9n4.jpg)
(//http://i.imgur.com/ayjFrZx.jpg)
I saw these in the frosting on a window, and tree bark, and didn't realize what I was seeing. I also saw one on a piece of paper---I think.
It took a little research, and I even found a picture of a quark---it even has a little u on it so you know it is.
(//http://i.imgur.com/9pVOQ9i.jpg)Solitary
You're just using a silly version of "see" (as in "with human eyes") which makes this whole thread completely pointless and not worthy of any more attention. But if that makes you happy, best of luck to you.
So why are you here? It may be silly to you, but most people think seeing is when you actually see something real, not a computer image, an illustration, mathematical symbols, bubble tracks in a bubble chamber, or tracks left by bombarding atoms with high energy particles. By your logic we should respect what Christian see when they see Christ or the Virgin Mary pictures or statues. And some claim to have actually "seen" them and were made Saints. Every one at this forum, or comes here, is not a scientist or mathematician. Most people don't think abstractly and when they hear "see" or "seen" they think someone actually saw something real and not an assumption from experiments that fit a theory or conjecture. You either don't understand the point I have made that you can not actually see anything smaller than a photon, or you are being an intellectual snob. Solitary
QuoteMost people don't think abstractly and when they hear "see" or "seen" they think someone actually saw something real and not an assumption from experiments that fit a theory or conjecture.
People who fit this "most" group don't talk about Quarks either, though. The moment you start talking about subatomic particles is the moment you can only talk in science speak, or you're going to be spreading a lot of misinformation.
And the topic will get very confusion and thus pointless from it. And by my logic we should most certainly not respect christians when they see christ, because my idea of "see" is based on "having evidence for". Which is the scientific way. Which is how you'd expect words to be used in a topic about a really complicated scientific subject that currently has next to 0 impact on daily lives.
Quote from: "Solitary"Most people don't think abstractly and when they hear "see" or "seen" they think someone actually saw something real and not an assumption from experiments that fit a theory or conjecture.
Wait... Are you saying that anything that you can't physically see with your own two eyes isn't real? Or that particle physicists just assume that subatomic particles exist and then interpret their results to fit that particular theory?
Quote from: "Jason78"Quote from: "Solitary"Most people don't think abstractly and when they hear "see" or "seen" they think someone actually saw something real and not an assumption from experiments that fit a theory or conjecture.
Wait... Are you saying that anything that you can't physically see with your own two eyes isn't real? Or that particle physicists just assume that subatomic particles exist and then interpret their results to fit that particular theory?
I never said that!! I said that quarks are problematic and may not exist until more research is done. And of course, physicist do assume that subatomic particles exist from indirect evidence because they can't actually see them, and also interpret their results to fit a particular theory based on mathematics. I repeat---I never said that you would have to see something for it to exist. Does anyone actually read more than the question I asked about quarks? I don't think I have ever been so misunderstood just by asking a question accept by saying you can't see God, does He exist? I can't see air, I can't see gravity, I can't see energy, I can't see mass, I can't see how people assume I'm so stupid I don't know they exist, or that subatomic particles don't exist just because I said you can't see them. :roll: Solitary
Quote from: "Solitary"I never said that!! I said that quarks are problematic and may not exist until more research is done. And of course, physicist do assume that subatomic particles exist from indirect evidence because they can't actually see them, and also interpret their results to fit a particular theory based on mathematics. I repeat---I never said that you would have to see something for it to exist. Does anyone actually read more than the question I asked about quarks? I don't think I have ever been so misunderstood just by asking a question accept by saying you can't see God, does He exist? I can't see air, I can't see gravity, I can't see energy, I can't see mass, I can't see how people assume I'm so stupid I don't know they exist, or that subatomic particles don't exist just because I said you can't see them. :roll: Solitary
I think the problem is that —in reality— you didn't really have
anything interesting to say at all, so everyone else was giving you too much credit, thinking that you were saying something interesting.