polevikov Posted October 16, 2011 Report Share Posted October 16, 2011 The difficulties of the quark hypothesis 7p. Theory, this hypothesis has not become as yet has not clear workable mathematical apparatus. Difficulties begin already with the name. The name "quarks" is taken from the novel "Finnegan’s Wake" (1939) by Irish writers James Joyce (1882-1944). In the interpretation of this novel "quarks" means – "crazy", "inconceivable", "unthinkable," "wild" etc. «Quarks surrounded by gluons» is literally «crazy in glue». It was a joke Marie Gell-Mann (b.1929) American physicist-theorist who introduced this term in science. This hypothesis can not explain structure of the electron, muon, tau-lepton, all mesons (their mass), and also gives an error of more than 2-3% and higher (up to 10%) by weight in more than half of the baryons. Moreover, error both with underestimation and overestimation of the calculated mass. That is, the binding energy of quarks inside an elementary particle can be both negative and positive. So. Quarks are hypothetical subparticles composing many "elementary" particles. Gell-Mann was the clever person and never about it spoke! To the question asked to him, whether there are quarks? He has answered: Who knows? Gell Mann had in mind only a mathematical model. Quarks should have a fractional electric charge ± ⅓ and ± ⅔. That is, it is simple on ⅔ or ⅓ less than elementary charge of an electron or a proton (charges are equal). On the end of 80th years of quarks was 6 (12) twelve together with antiquarks. Quarks: Upper u with mass ≈ 310 MeV charge +2 / 3 (5MeV) up Lower d with mass ≈ 310 MeV charge -1 / 3 (7MeV) down Strange s ≈ 505 MeV -1 / 3 (150 MeV) strange Charm c ≈ 1500 MeV +2 / 3 (1300MeV) charm Beautiful b ≈ 5000 MeV -1 / 3 (5000 MeV) bottom True t ≈ 22 500 MeV +2 / 3 (? MeV) top In brackets energy the mass of free quarks outside the particles is specified. It is estimated their weight and in the calculations are not counted. Mesons should consist of two quarks, and baryons (protons, neutrons, etc.) of the three. Thus, the weight: Proton p+ 938 MeV consists of uud quarks and or ūūđ antiquarks (refer to lines above or wavy lines). Neutron no 940 MeV consists of udd quarks and or ūđđ antiquarks. Quark masses are summarized satisfactorily (310+310+310= 930) Mesons: πº meson (pi-zero meson) 135 MeV should be composed of quarks uū or dđ (310+310 MeV) π+ meson (pi-plus meson) 140 MeV uđ (310+310) "pi" - mesons π- meson (pi-minus meson) 140 MeV ūd (310+310) Kº meson (K-zero meson) 498 MeV dš and or đs (310+505) "kappa" mesons K+ meson (K-plus meson) 494 MeV uš (310+505) K- meson (K-minus meson) 494 MeV ūs (310+505) η meson 549 MeV uu or dd or ss (310+310) or (505+505) "eta" - meson D+ meson 1868 MeV cđ (1500+310) "D" - mesons D- meson 1868 MeV čd (1500+310) Dº meson 1863 MeV (lower) ču and or cū (1500+310) Baryons: λ 1116 MeV uds and or ūđš (310+310+505) "lambda" - baryon Σ+ 1189 MeV uus and or ūūš (310+310+505) "sigma" - baryons Σº 1192 MeV (more) uds and or ūđš (310+310+505) Σ- 1197 MeV (ones more) dds and or đđš (310+310+505) Ξº 1315 MeV uss and or ūšš (310+505+505) "xi" - baryons Ξ- 1321 MeV (it is more) dss and or đšš (310+505+505) Ω- 1672 MeV sss and or ššš (505+505+505) "omega" - a baryon Summarize and check for yourself. Leptons: Electron e- 0,511 MeV no quarks (too easy!) Electron neutrino υe 0 (MeV) quarks aren't present Muon μ- 106 MeV no quarks Muon neutrino υμ 0 (MeV) quarks aren't present Tau lepton τ- 1782 MeV, no quarks Tau-neutrino υτ 250 MeV quarks aren't present The masses are indicated on the energy scale. These particles (or waves) the quark hypothesis does not explain at all. Strangely, if the mass is at the electron, muon, tau lepton, why this mass does not need to quarks? Maybe easier at first explain mass? What is it? Each time when energy accelerators increases, new particles emerge that do not fit into the quark model and it is necessary to "invent" new quarks.. Remember the name, which gave the Gell-Mann! Particles produced at accelerators so much, that if any of them fit into the set of combinations of quarks, it is presented as another success! Never mind that many of the other particles do not fit into this system! Now one moment connected with "carriers" of interactions. The mass of the particles "the carriers" interaction (should connect protons and neutrons in the nucleus) is calculated by the formula: m= ћ/l0∙c, where ћ - is a constant Dirac 1,054∙10-34 J∙s, с- the speed of light 2,9979∙108 m/s, l0 – selected range (radius) of interaction. If we are dealing with elementary particles in quantum physics, in the formulas used constant Dirac ћ, and when dealing with radiation, is used Planck's constant h - 6,62 ∙ 10-34 J∙s, and it is more constant the Dirac in 2π times, that is: h = 2πћ. If the radius of the circle is 1, its area and circumference of a circle equal to 2π. And so, nuclear forces can be transmitted both, by particles and by fields. Radiation, it is variable field in time, nothing more. If we assume that the mass of the nuclear connection is formed by particles, then using the formula: m= ћ/l0∙c with selected interaction radius equal to the diameter of a proton (≈1,54∙10-15m range of nuclear forces is very small), we obtain weight carrier of force equal to ≈ 95% by weight of π0-meson. Or about 7 times smaller than the mass of the proton. If we consider that the weight of nuclear connection is formed by a field of nuclear forces connected with space, that applying the formula: m= h/l0∙c (this formula is the Compton wavelength) with a selected range of interaction (≈1,54∙10-15m) we obtain 86% of weight of the proton-neutron. That is, protons, and neutrons are connected with themselves! And "transmit" the interaction, without intermediaries! And mathematics doesn't object! And no need to explain why there are more heavy mesons in 4-13-74 times! heavier than the π-mesons with the same shorter-range! It is not clear that they are linked? They "pour out" from the unstable baryons entire batches. Do protons "overeat" mesons, which should their fasten with each other? And where did they come from, after the blow of protons against each other? Simply imagine that they are synthesized in the moment of blow together with the new protons. Unstable elements breaks up and remains only the protons, electrons and their electric antipodes. Thus, there is reasonable doubt: that the nuclear forces "are transmitted" by light mesons. By the way, how does this process, a clear explanation of the "official" hypothesis also does not provide. Whether protons and neutrons are exchanged mesons, or mesons bind them as a deformable springs, or alternately annihilating and arising again in some way, keep the nucleons (particles of a nucleus) together. Besides, mesons are very heavy, 7 pieces and the proton mass is doubled. How much should weigh the nucleus of atoms? If they have a lot of mesons? It is unclear why the gluons (glue) - hypothetical particles that hold quarks inside protons and neutrons can not perform the same function and to keep the nucleons together? Mist is a lot! Now it is clear that without a precise definition (formulation) - what is the mass of the substance (matter) can not build any decent theory. Einstein gave his definition of mass. According to his views, « "curvature" of space-time and gives a mass to all objects"» - end quote. And he was urgently sent on pension and all tried to forget about it! At silly people always is censorship. Nobody should know that they are silly people! Higgs Bosons also do not clarify the picture. It is unclear where they come from? Why elementary particles "absorb" Higgs bosons with varying degree of saturation and have thus different masses? Where to disappear unobservable "spirits" of these bosons? What is the mass of the Higgs boson? By what criteria it calculated? Mist is even greater. The hypothesis of quarks is zonal, rather than a general hypothesis, that is, it "explains" only part of the structure of matter. Field (electric, magnetic, gravity), this hypothesis does not explain. As well, and yourself "quarks" - what is it? What their relationship to space and time? In fundamental physics, there are three important questions that need to give a clear answer: 1. What is the quantum of action? That is why the energy share (split) on the already indivisible portions - quanta, whose energy depends on the radiation frequency (derivative of time).2. Where the magnetic field disappears at collision two gamma quanta (rays) of high energy and then the birth of at least a couple of elementary particles takes place (particle and its electric antipode or "electric reflection" in space). The electric field around the particles is (neutral particles with no electric field is not stable), but no magnetic field! Gamma quanta are fragments of an electromagnetic field. Search (look for), where a magnetic field is!3. Quantized space-time in portions or it is continuous and it without structure (space) which should not limit the speed of flight of photons (particles or waves its are, it makes no difference!). In fact, flatten and increase the mass of accelerated particles, it (space) also should not. Accelerated protons approaching to the speed of light similar to the flat side of a coin flying forward. With increasing speed (energy) collisions (the colliding beams of protons) the number of small fragments (spray-fragments) should increase, if it is component parts of colliding protons (in forehead). In practice, there is an increase of heavy particles ("fragments"), which are even heavier than the proton! After disintegration they turn into set, of protons, antiprotons, electrons and anti-electrons (positrons). Thus, the probability that it is debris colliding protons is very small. These particles were formed at the moment of blow of protons and into their structure didn't enter. And thus, increasing energy accelerators does not clarify the picture, and even more confusing it. By the way. Time for calculation of all quantum numbers (the charge, weight, spin etc.) the particles received at collision now makes some hours. So to wait months of results it is not necessary. Quarks were sought in the 70s in Space, where the energy of the protons in cosmic rays exceeds reached recently.. Search did not succeed. It is unclear what expected from the collision of protons in our time? Interest can be present only collisions of heavy nucleus Pb, Au, etc., as these elements in cosmic rays aren't present, or too little. If you look closely to the net (lattice) of baryons masses, and mesons too, is clearly seen that the mass difference between the clusters of baryons and the mass of a proton is 1.3 - 2.7 - 5.4 and more mass of πº-mesons. Products of disintegration of baryons, and mesons are containing heavy mesons π or K. If you define the concept - the mass, it becomes evident that baryons are simply compounds the protons (neutrons) with various numbers of mesons of different types (and charge), plus the "mass of connection" protons and neutrons with mesons (the fractional difference of weight). Compounds πº and π-, π+ mesons among themselves form other types of mesons. Super heavy baryons are formed by connecting the set of protons, neutrons and mesons in a single conglomerate. Quark values - is the difference between the fractional value of the proton mass and the mass of additional mesons, and that misleading. Probably seeing fractional "spin" of elementary particles by Gell-Mann proposed the existence of fractional electric charge. For the "spin" particles (quantum "mechanical" magnetic moment) can be a fraction: ½ or 3/2, etc. By the way, because of the additional mass of mesons, the system of quarks and does not work for mesons themselves. Especially on π and K mesons, since they add weight to the protons and neutrons (plus mass connection), forming a short-lived and unstable baryons. Whether there could be physicists "victims" of auto-suggestion? Yes could! Words that describe the properties of quark "flavor", "color", "beauty", "charm" fascinate and lead to influence on emotional area of a brain, instead on the logic one. Physicists would merely "fascinated" of this "fragrant" hypothesis and do not hear objections of opponents. Simply don't want to listen. That there is just such an invention as a "renormalization". All the calculations that exceed the norm, just throw away! All the equations that give absurd results, simply aren't considered by physicists! Richard Feynman (1918-1988) called it a "sweeping dust under the carpet" - end quote. Practice to fit under the hypothesis. This is the irrational behavior, and it is explained by the effect of auto-suggestion. Should be avoided combination of similar words in strict physical theories, as it is fraught with replacement of the thinking process on the process of contemplation. The last argument for the existence of quarks inside the proton, the dynamics of scattering of high-energy electrons with the conclusion of the existence of point’s (point-like) formations inside the proton. Certainly, the proton also is not obliged to be a round ideal ball, as well as electron. At least two poles, these particles may have, if they are formed of linear objects. The theory of "strings" tries to explain, why quarks can't be beaten out from protons. According to this theory, the quarks flying out are completed by an arising antiquark, and generates a meson. A beautiful idea! If it does not contradict the Law of Conservation of Energy. Beautifully! Quarks are connected between themselves a thin string (gluon field) and rotate with huge speed, forming a particle. Even better the theory of "superstrings". In this theory the space may have to fold by "superfluous" six dimensions, and particles are similar to vibrating strings, that is, they one-dimensional objects. For a proton the length of a string is supposed of 10-35 m. Try to unite now the theory of "strings" for quarks and the theory of "superstrings" for particles and to apply it not only to elementary particles, but also for all space. And you get a view of Albert Einstein (1879-1955) that is a mass in space. Once he realized this long time ago. P.S. Small addition to a theme. In Cosmology existed two variants of expansion of the Universe. The first: the Universe should extend infinitely since in it is not enough weight of substance to slow the expansion of space-time and matter scattering. The second: the Universe should extend with the slowdown which then will be replaced by compression up to a singular point. And then again the Big explosion with a birth of the new Universe. For realization of the second variant, average density of a matter before recent time was insufficiently. Then was opened so-called «The dark matter» (it simply doesn't radiate electromagnetic waves). And as if the second variant can be executed. However recent discovery of possible effect of expansion of the Universe with small acceleration put under question necessity of existence of "a dark matter». After all its gravitational contribution should interfere in accelerated expansion of the Universe. And it is not important, because of what this acceleration can arise, because of effect of acceleration of time or other effects. It is important to understand that the study only one matter can not be restricted. Also it is impossible to be too self-confident and to believe that we know all about this World. Andrey Vladimirovich Polevikov On October, 9th 2011 See other publications of the author 0844794-51 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
polevikov Posted February 12, 2012 Author Report Share Posted February 12, 2012 The difficulties of the quark hypothesis 2Continuation. http://www.docme.ru/doc/48580/the-difficulties-of-the-quark-hypothesis-2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.