Are Quarks Real?

[Jason78]

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.

[Solitary]

My bad! You really can see subatomic particles, here is proof:









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.

Solitary

[Plu]

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.

[Solitary]

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

[Plu]

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.

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.

[Jason78]

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?

[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

[Hakurei Reimu]

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

anything interesting to say at all, so everyone else was giving you too much credit, thinking that you were saying something interesting.