Forum Replies Created
-
I enjoyed this one. Just a quick summary of the long history
thinking about small things.link: http://www.quantumdiaries.org/2010/11/18/but-what-are-quarks-made-of/
“…I know what you’re thinking: But this is another table! This looks just like the Periodic Table or the Eightfold Way! Isn’t this therefore a hint that even quarks (and leptons) are made up of something smaller still?
That is certainly a very reasonable guess, but only experiment can tell us for sure, and unfortunately, it gets progressively more difficult to see these small particles: roughly speaking, the atom is one million times smaller than a human hair, and the proton is 100,000 time smaller than the atom. Our current understanding is that the quark is a point-like particle with no spatial extent!
My recent research focuses on searching for evidence that quarks are made up of even smaller stuff by probing these tiny distance scales. The unprecedented energy of the LHC allows us to probe smaller distances than ever before: about 1/20,000 the size of the proton. In my next post, I’ll describe how we actually do this and tell you what we have found…”
link: http://www.quantumdiaries.org/2010/11/18/but-what-are-quarks-made-of/
Comments
Gregory • 4 years ago
Ultimately, if we discover the fundamental particle, we’re still faced with a conundrum: Of what is that particle comprised?
Some say “energy”, but then we have to ask of what energy is comprised.
If matter is merely a fancily arranged portion of energy tweaked and tuned so it takes on the shape of an atom with all of its inner parts fully functioning, then what is this “energy” which is capable of wearing a wide variety of costumes and playing many roles?
I guess my question is more akin to philosophy than physics, because I doubt we will ever discover the true nature and composition of the energy by which all things consist.
7
•
Reply
•
Share ›Avatar
Alone: bad. Friend: good! Gregory • 3 months ago~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
WHAT ARE STRINGS MADE FROM?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~…that’s a mind bender.
Oxygen has 8 protons, 8 neutrons and 8 electrons making a total of 24 particles per atom.
Aluminum — number 13 — would have a total of 39 particles.
Gold — number 79 — would have 237 particles.
The properties of elements are known with great precision but they are in actuality just a different number of the same thing (that is true regardless of the theory).
Somethings might be soft, hard, liquid, gas, solid, different colors, magnetic, rubbery, stiff, etc. but they are all just a different number of the same particle. You don’t know the properties of it… you only know the properties of a large group of it.
In other words… even though you might know a string has a string-like shape, you can’t know what the string is made from because it is what is used to make things.A different number (amount) of the exact same thing makes completely different things (elements.)
If you do a chemical test and you find out something is Aluminum… you have only found out there are 39 string particles in a group… not what the actual strings are.
So, it (a string) is not an element and cannot be like any element or molecule unless it is by pure coincidence.
The string (purely by happenstance) might be just like a bendable but non-stretchable fishing line or spiders web. But they also might be something that is completely inconceivable and unknowable to humans.Also… when you look at Gold you can see it has a nice color, correct? No, gold is a group of atoms made from 237 particles each. And those particles are made from strings.
Color is only the frequency of vibrations that are traveling to your eye along the strings. No matter what you are looking at you are only seeing a different vibrational frequency from a different number of strings in a group.Could a string actually have a color anyway? Or even be white, black or grey? I have absolutely no idea. I’m sure it cannot be invisible though, because…
for something to be invisible it would mean that light passes through it. And light is only a vibration coming from that same type of string. There isn’t anyway to see it but it is not invisible.Zeno? If you take any object like an iron bar — you can crack it in half because it is made from individual atoms. At a quantum level the iron bar is NOT made from one continuous substance. But the strings in my theory (or regular string theory) actually possibly are continuous. So if you took a (quantum) string and magnified it until it was the same width as a pencil, could you snap it in half? It would be like having a big fat piece of fishing line. But, Instead of the fishing line being made from billions and billions of individual molecules of plastic… it would be just one continuous thing.
A string is: Bendable not stretchable. Not invisible but you cannot see it. There is no way to tell if it has color. And I know about ten other things about it. See if you can guess any.
1
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
Drew Melman-Rogers Alone: bad. Friend: good! • 12 days agoThe number of neutrons does not vary directly with the number of protons
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
Alone: bad. Friend: good! Drew Melman-Rogers • 12 days agoYes, I know, those were just what they call “examples.”
The point of the comment was “what strings are made from.” There was no need to give a complete explanation of the way neutrons and protons combine — was there? It was NOT a chemistry lesson.
But anyway — my theory actually will give the ultimate reason how N / P combine.
Check here…
“isotopes and nucleus formations / construction”….
http://www.quantumdiaries.Org/2010/11/18/but-what-are-quarks-made-of/#comment-2569457787
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
dragonf1re96 Gregory • 9 months agoEnergy does distort perhaps we perceive that as solidity.
1
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
Alone: bad. Friend: good! dragonf1re96 • 9 months ago~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
ENERGY CANNOT BE OUT ON ITS OWN
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~http://www.quantumdiaries.Org/2015/03/13/einsteins-most-famous-equation/#comment-2061398121
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
dragonf1re96 Alone: bad. Friend: good! • 9 months agoEnergy and mass are one in the same bit it is more complex than that, Einstien was quite vague.
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
Ryan Webster dragonf1re96 • 5 months agoEinstein was a man. He proposed a theoretical equation which suits our current knowledge quite well. When our knowledge expands past what it is now (and we learn what Energy truly is) it will be as laughable as phlogiston.
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
Alone: bad. Friend: good! dragonf1re96 • 9 months agoNope, go to that link and read it.
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
dragonf1re96 Alone: bad. Friend: good! • 9 months agoPss. An equation is not one whole, but two wholes that “equal” eachother.
Sorry for being rude, but I feel that it is warranted.
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
Alone: bad. Friend: good! dragonf1re96 • 9 months agoSorry, you have absolutely no idea of what energy is, but neither does anyone else for that matter (except me).
http://www.quantumdiaries.Org/2015/03/13/einsteins-most-famous-equation/#comment-2061398121
You do not understand equations either…
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
dragonf1re96 Alone: bad. Friend: good! • 9 months agoOn the rel right now bruh: energy and mass are the same thing—–E=mc^2
1
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
Alone: bad. Friend: good! dragonf1re96 • 9 months agoStop being an imbecile. Go to the link and read it…
http://www.quantumdiaries.Org/2015/03/13/einsteins-most-famous-equation/#comment-2061398121
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
Alone: bad. Friend: good! dragonf1re96 • 9 months agoYou are an imbecile. The mass is multiplied by the speed of light squared c^2
Here it is really easy for you…
E = mc^2 … correctE =/= m ….. E is not equal to m
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
dragonf1re96 Alone: bad. Friend: good! • 9 months agoEnergy not beyond the speed of light has a measured mass bruh YOu ARe A JIVE TURKEY over some semantic, who makes science UNfun
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
dragonf1re96 Alone: bad. Friend: good! • 9 months agoPs. Energy is singular if you understand how equations work, in other words: it is on its own side of the equation (by it’s self).
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
Alone: bad. Friend: good! dragonf1re96 • 9 months agoSorry, you have absolutely no idea of what energy is, but neither does anyone else for that matter (except me).
http://www.quantumdiaries.Org/2015/03/13/einsteins-most-famous-equation/#comment-2061398121
You do not understand equations either
•
Reply
•
Share ›
link: http://www.quantumdiaries.org/2010/11/18/but-what-are-quarks-made-of/
w
vSome interesting answers to the quark question at this link. Worth reading, i think.
w
v
===========================
What are Quarks Made Of?
https://www.quora.com/What-are-quarks-made-of
Elizabeth H. Simmons, Particle Theorist, Dean, and Physics Professor at Michigan State University
13.3k Views • Upvoted by Andy Buckley, PhD in particle physics, visiting researcher at CERN, lecturer in physics
Elizabeth is a Most Viewed Writer in Particle Physics.As Jay and others have said, it is possible that quarks may be composed of smaller entities, but (a) there is no experimental evidence for quark sub-structure yet and (b) it is difficult to create consistent theories in which quarks have sub-structure.
I’m writing to correct one error that has crept into several answers by others. Technicolor theories are not models of quark substructure. Rather, in technicolor theories the state(s) playing the role that the Higgs field plays in the Standard Model would be composite (whereas the Higgs is a fundamental state in the Standard Model).
======================Michael Price, MSc in quantum field theory
746 Views • Michael is a Most Viewed Writer in Quarks.Quarks may be made of string, if string theory is true. Or quarks may be fundamental, in which case we can’t say what they are made of. Quarks may or may not be fundamental, but we can describe some of the properties of whatever they are made of. Quarks come in different types. The different types have what we call flavours and colours. The flavours are called, up, down, charm, strange, top and bottom.
The colours are red, yellow/green or blue. So you can have a red down quark, for example. And you can have antiquarks, e.g. an anti-yellow anti-top quark. Meson have two quarks of a colour and the same anti-colour, but they may be different flavours. Baryons have three quarks always of the three different colours, but an assortment of flavours.
Quark flavours can be arranged in a table, along with the leptons (electrons and neutrinos): … see link
It is unknown but not likely that elemental particles consist of something else….
Near as anyone knows right now quarks, in turn, don’t consist of anything else. But then it’s hard to say, because it is very tricky to study quarks. We have no way of splitting them as we do with protons.
… The rest is what they call dark matter and dark energy, and no one knows yet what either of those things “are.” We know they exist we just don’t know what they are.
Well i only wanna focus on one question. And that question is NOT what protons are made of or what electrons are made of or what neutrons are made of. If i understand correctly that one is easy for scientists to answer — they are made of Quarks. So, now we are down to Quarks as the building blocks of ‘matter’. Right?
Now my question is what are QUARKS made of and why in the world would you say “its unlikely” quarks are made of something smaller? Why would you assume its unlikely there are smaller undiscovered building blocks? Why assume there isnt a progression of infinitely smaller and smaller particles?
I do get the fact that ‘regular’ matter only makes up five percent or so of the big U. And i get the fact that ‘dark matter’ is a mystery so far, so we dont know what the heck its ‘made of’. But maybe its made of the same stuff as ‘regular matter’ when you get down BELOW quark-level. Who knows.
I dont know why it would be ‘likely’ or ‘unlikely’ to assume EVERYTHING (dark and non-dark matter) in the Universe is made of the same ‘stuff’
Based on my little reading so far, it looks like its a total mystery as to “what the U is made of”. Which means we dont know what ‘we’ are ‘made of’, obviously.
The spiritual sites all say the U is made of “consciousness” btw. I know you aint into that. Maybe U is though 🙂
w
v<span class=”d4pbbc-font-color” style=”color: blue”>I read somewhere that he is supposed to fine. We have six DEs on team. We only have to draft one then.
</span>Thats the optimistic view, imho.
Back surgeries are just simply
never simple-and-predictable.w
vFact is, human beings may not really exist, in some respects, in the nature/nurture continuum.
Genetically we are built to be culture-bearing animals. That means culture has a direct effect on what we are as individuals, and paradoxically, we’re that way because we are genetically predetermined to be that way.
——————–
What do you mean “humans may not exist in the nature/nurture continuum” ?w
vIt may be the wrong way of putting it.
That is, if we are genetically determined to be culture bearing animals, then, nature has decreed that much of what we are comes from culture.
So there’s no dichotomy, for one thing.
Anyway…to me, the question is this: what’s (A) hard-wired at the level of the brain, and what’s (B) absorbed through cultural/social values, practices, perceptions, norms, and taboos. Part of the issue is that many things on list “A” can be altered or re-shaped or transformed through list “B.”
======================================
So you are saying that females who grew up in an aboriginal culture in the fourth century in Japan, might have a tendency to have “trait X”
but females who grew up in 1999 in New York City might have a tendency to “Not have trait X”.Still one wonders if they are tendencies that are ‘hard wired’ below the level of Culture. Core, ‘hard-wired’ tendencies that may differ among males and females. One would think that there are such differences given the biological difference that males dont get pregnant and females do.
One would ‘guess’ that a bio difference that big would lead to some core differences below the level of culture. Just how much cultures could ‘change’ those possible-core-differences, is an interesting question.…on a side note, i was at a martial arts competition over the weekend, taking photos. (a judge and a magistrate were in the competition – friends of mine) Anyway, i had my camera and was taking photos, and I mainly took photos of the little kids. I noticed most of the little boys were kicking the crap out of each other, making all kinds of little ‘competitive’ gestures and generally just being little dicks to each other. Meanwhile the little girls were just laughing and having fun and enjoying the hell out of each other. There was quite a difference in the behavior between the boys and girls. I ‘assume’ the differences were cultural. But i dunno. I always ‘assume’ its culture.
w
v
