Author Topic: Are Quarks Real?  (Read 4240 times)

Offline Solitary

Re: Are Quarks Real?
« Reply #15 on: July 06, 2013, 09:56:12 AM »
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
There is nothing more frightful than ignorance in action.

Offline Solitary

Re: Are Quarks Real?
« Reply #16 on: July 06, 2013, 10:10:45 AM »
Quote from: "missingnocchi"
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!

 =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.
There is nothing more frightful than ignorance in action.

Offline Sal1981

Re: Are Quarks Real?
« Reply #17 on: July 06, 2013, 11:44:06 AM »
Is this one of those "you can't see the wind" kind of bullshit?
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool" --- Richard P. Feynman

Offline Hakurei Reimu

Re: Are Quarks Real?
« Reply #18 on: July 06, 2013, 11:45:50 AM »
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.
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 the_antithesis

Re: Are Quarks Real?
« Reply #19 on: July 06, 2013, 12:42:50 PM »
Quote from: "missingnocchi"
Quote from: "the_antithesis"
[ You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login ]

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.


Offline missingnocchi

Re: Are Quarks Real?
« Reply #20 on: July 06, 2013, 01:16:30 PM »
Quote from: "the_antithesis"
Quote from: "missingnocchi"
Quote from: "the_antithesis"
[ You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login ]

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.

[ You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login ]

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.
What's a "Leppo?"

Re: Are Quarks Real?
« Reply #21 on: July 06, 2013, 01:19:24 PM »
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).
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 #22 on: July 06, 2013, 01:38:33 PM »
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.

Offline Solitary

Re: Are Quarks Real?
« Reply #23 on: July 06, 2013, 02:28:35 PM »
:Hangman:  Solitary
There is nothing more frightful than ignorance in action.

Offline Solitary

Re: Are Quarks Real?
« Reply #24 on: July 06, 2013, 02:54:27 PM »
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
There is nothing more frightful than ignorance in action.

Re: Are Quarks Real?
« Reply #25 on: July 06, 2013, 05:59:02 PM »
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.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers." Obama
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Offline Hakurei Reimu

Re: Are Quarks Real?
« Reply #26 on: July 06, 2013, 07:14:21 PM »
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.
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 #27 on: July 06, 2013, 07:16:50 PM »
Whatever! Solitary
There is nothing more frightful than ignorance in action.

Re: Are Quarks Real?
« Reply #28 on: July 06, 2013, 09:45:56 PM »
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.
« Last Edit: July 07, 2013, 01:23:54 AM by GurrenLagann »
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 Solitary

Re: Are Quarks Real?
« Reply #29 on: July 07, 2013, 12:57:03 AM »
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
There is nothing more frightful than ignorance in action.

 

SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk