Author Topic: Are Quarks Real?  (Read 4727 times)

Offline Solitary

Are Quarks Real?
« on: July 05, 2013, 09:00:21 AM »
:evil:
« Last Edit: July 11, 2013, 03:35:04 AM by Solitary »
There is nothing more frightful than ignorance in action.

Re: Are Quarks Real?
« Reply #1 on: July 05, 2013, 09:11:03 AM »
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!
Winner of WitchSabrinas Best Advice Award 2012


We can easily forgive a child who is afraid of the dark; the real
tragedy of life is when men are afraid of the light. -Plato

Offline Solitary

Re: Are Quarks Real?
« Reply #2 on: July 05, 2013, 09:26:18 AM »
:evil:
« Last Edit: July 11, 2013, 03:35:28 AM by Solitary »
There is nothing more frightful than ignorance in action.

Re: Are Quarks Real?
« Reply #3 on: July 05, 2013, 10:57:48 AM »
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

Re: Are Quarks Real?
« Reply #4 on: July 05, 2013, 11:05:50 AM »
Sounds more like a philosophy of science question than an science one.
Which means that to me the offer of certainty, the offer of complete security, the offer of an impermeable faith that can\'t give way, is the offer of something not worth having.
[...]
Take the risk of thinking for yourself. Much more happiness, truth, beauty & wisdom, will come to you that way.
-Christopher Hitchens

Offline the_antithesis

Re: Are Quarks Real?
« Reply #5 on: July 05, 2013, 12:22:45 PM »

Re: Are Quarks Real?
« Reply #6 on: July 05, 2013, 01:54:58 PM »
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.
Winner of WitchSabrinas Best Advice Award 2012


We can easily forgive a child who is afraid of the dark; the real
tragedy of life is when men are afraid of the light. -Plato

Offline Solitary

Re: Are Quarks Real?
« Reply #7 on: July 05, 2013, 04:43:50 PM »
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.


Quote
A 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.

Quote
I 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
There is nothing more frightful than ignorance in action.

Offline Colanth

Re: Are Quarks Real?
« Reply #8 on: July 05, 2013, 04:50:58 PM »
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.)
Afflicting the comfortable for 70 years.
Science builds skyscrapers, faith flies planes into them.

Re: Are Quarks Real?
« Reply #9 on: July 05, 2013, 05:22:14 PM »
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.

Offline Hakurei Reimu

Re: Are Quarks Real?
« Reply #10 on: July 05, 2013, 08:27:46 PM »
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.
Warning: Don't Tease The Miko!
(she bites!)
Spinny Miko Avatar shamelessly ripped off from You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Offline Solitary

Re: Are Quarks Real?
« Reply #11 on: July 06, 2013, 12:58:22 AM »
Quote
Your statement is incompetent
There is nothing more frightful than ignorance in action.

Offline Plu

Re: Are Quarks Real?
« Reply #12 on: July 06, 2013, 02:48:58 AM »
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.
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Offline Solitary

Re: Are Quarks Real?
« Reply #13 on: July 06, 2013, 08:48:48 AM »
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 quarkyou 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
There is nothing more frightful than ignorance in action.

Offline missingnocchi

Re: Are Quarks Real?
« Reply #14 on: July 06, 2013, 09:39:49 AM »
Quote from: "the_antithesis"
[ You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login ]

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!
What's a "Leppo?"

 

SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk