johkih
Hi
So I'm back again, though I forgot my username and password so I had to make a new account.. that's not the question though. Anyhow! - I started thinking about the nucleus after reading about the island of stability and onwards about the shell model and thinking "what a bunch of bollocks - I could do that better myself! I'm making me my own model of the nucleus"

Problem is, I can't do it better myself (obviously), but it's nice to just keep the brain spinning sometimes. Let me set the stage and tell you what led me to this question:

I was thinking rather naively (like no-one else had thought about it) to simulate the nucleus as a cluster of balls (since I was thinking protons and neutrons are after all rather partically particles), attracting each other through the strong nuclear force and repelling each other through the electric force and just watch how they arranged themselves and at what sort of numbers and combinations of "protons" and "neutrons" the whole thing got unstable. However...

Then I started thinking about what exactly makes a proton and a neutron and how the heck those little guys interact and I suppose this is exactly where I run amock since I know basically nil about it in detail. The quarks in a nucleon pass them little gluons between them as force-carriers. ("rubber-band" force if you will I suppose, not affecting each other a whole lot while near each other but then tuggin the leash if one tries to run away?). This all good and well.. I imagine one could imagine a nucleon almost like a .. vibrating/rotating triangle with a quark in each corner.. I might be stretching it a bit here..

So.. damnit I really wish I had a picture.. ill have to coordinate-systemitise it to you.. U(x,y) marks an up-quark at (x,y) etc.. so:
you have a proton with U(0,0),U(3,2),D(3,-2) and a neutron with D(-1,2),D(-1,-2),U(-4,0). Drawing this on a paper might help visualise it.

How come (or does it??), a new neutron doesnt form spontaneously from D(-1,2),D(-1,-2),U(0,0) ? (also forming a new proton from the rest of the quarkies, if you imagine adding a third dimension to the coordinate-system and allowing the remaining quarks to be closer to each other too) Why doesnt gluons just straight up pass between nucleons like that? (where the hell does them mesons come from and how does the three quarks in the nucleon know that it's those other two that is it's buddies and not that other fine quarks "over there" it should bond with?) - which leads me to my actual question (I think): how come quarks arnt free to roam about the nucleus as long as they stay within, say, a proton diameter of atleast two other suitable quarks? (considering color and all that good stuff) Another way of asking this question is - "does quarks wander between nucleons in a nucleus, forming and re-forming protons and neutrons as they do so"? (I'm thinking "no" because I cant really picture why a nucleus would be more or less stable this way but it would seem as if though it would be just a blob of quark chaos). (which would also jiggle the electric field in the nucleus around and messing with the electrons etc... just a thought.. like some.. intra-van-deer-waals effect)

An additional question I was thinking about is this. can neutrons and protons pass through one another (proton/neutron and neutron/neutron collision) - or more precisely - can they bounce off of one another?! how can a bunch of quarks interact like that and make a bunch of other quarks bounce like so?

I dont doubt for a second that the answer to all these questions lie to find within the QCD.. I dont feel that I have the patience or know-how to learn that in a reasonable time-frame, so I'm trying to condense.. squeeze.. the information out of all you guys.

damn quarks ruined my model of the nucleus We really do have to get rid of all this wave/particle-duality stuff too, it's no fun.
AlphaNumeric
I'll give an explaination of nuclear systems and then if there's anything still you're wondering about it'll be easier to address if it's a matter of not understanding the current model.

Nucleons are made up of quarks, which are held together by gluons. The protons and neutrons are made up of 3 'main' quarks. The up and down quarks in the nucleons have a rest mass of only a few MeV. They make up less than 10% the mass of the nucleons. The rest of made up of binding energy carried by the gluons. With the gluons having so much of the energy it's easy for them to produce more quarks, then then do more interactions with the main quarks. Basically, there's a constantly shifting set of quarks in a proton but at any moment there's the right balance to mean the proton is a colour singlet (the strong force charge is balanced out to zero) and there's 3 primary clusters of electromagnetic charge in the nucleon (ie 3 quark states).

Now gluons also carry colour charge, they are unlike the photon (which doesn't carry electromagnetic charge itself). So gluons self interact but also they aren't allowed to be seen on their own, because colour (ie the strong charge) is 'confined', it always must balance out to zero when it's viewed from afar. So we've got this constantly shifting set of quarks, throwing gluons at one another and the gluons are throwing gluons at gluons which are throwing gluons at.... well you get the idea. But how do protons and neutrons interact if they aren't allowed to throw gluons at one another, because then we'd see gluons on their own?

Well the gluons have so much energy that they can produce a quark-antiquark pair. Such a pair has no colour charge total (they balance out) and so they can travel a bit further than gluons. We call these pairs 'mesons' (compared to baryons, which has 3 quarks which balance out their colour). So a nucleon cannot throw out a gluon but it can throw out a meson. The mesons last just long enough to make it to the next nucleon and those quarks in the meson interact with the gluons in the new nucleon. So nucleons interact by mesons, not by gluons. It's a residual effect.

So when a proton and a proton interact they can do it by passing a meson between them or if they have enough energy their quarks will produce a weak boson (which have 90 times the mass of the proton! It's like a baby giving birth to an elephant!). This then passes to the other proton and interacts with quarks there. The super massive weak boson doesn't last very long so the protons have to get VERY close, which needs all that energy.

QCD explains all of this. Well, it's still a matter of conjecture that QCD explains confinement. It's not a mathematically simple concept. Infact it's one of the Clay Institute millenium prizes. If you can prove what basically boils down to confinement then you would win a million dollars! Calculations within mathematical methods or super computers (several people in my department are UK leaders in this area) give tons of evidence that it's true but showing it's true for lots of cases isn't the same as proving it's true in general.

/edit

Oh and if you don't know how colour works here's an explaination :

EM charge works by + and - some elementary charge. So an electron is - and a positron is +. When an electron emits a photon, which doesn't carry EM charge, it doesn't charge it's EM charge. When it emits a weak boson like a W-, which is charged, it must preserve total EM charge so the electron goes to something EM neutral and the W-, so you get electron -> neutrino + W-.

Quarks and gluons are similar but a bit more complicated. A quark will have EM charge, say +2/3 but also a colour charge. There's 3 charges (called colours) in the strong force, call them a, b and c. a+b+c = neutral and a+(-a) = neutral. So a proton will have 3 quarks with a, b and c colour. A meson will work by having a and -a colours. A gluon carries colour but not EM charge. So when a gluon, say with colour a, emits a gluon it must change 'colour'. So a quark with colour a emits a gluon and changes to colour b. To keep colour total unchanged, the gluon has colour (-+a, so that the quark+gluon has colour b+(-+a = a. It's unchanrged. So suppose you have a meson, where the two quarks have charge c and -c. The first one emits a gluon and changes to b, so the gluon has colour -b+c. This then goes to the other quark and it goes from -c to -c+(-b+c) = -b. So the quarks are now b and -b. Total zero. So quarks are constantly changing colour, provided the total is still zero.

But even worse, the gluons make more quarks. So the first gluon goes from c to b, via a gluon emission with colour -b+c. But on the way, that turns into two gluons, with colour say -b+a and -a+c. Still a total of -b+c, which added to the quarks gives the total of zero. But then those two gluons can turn into more gluons or more quarks.

As you can see, it gets very complicated very quickly. That's what quantum field theory is all about, adding up ALL these quarks and leptons and photons and gluons and weak boson productions, accounting for colour and charge and all the ways they can be produced. It's a staggeringly complicated procedure. Hence why even the simplest computer models need super computers!
johkih
Great post - thanks Alpha.
I'll formulate a response, but I also have to get some sleep because I'm leaving for turkey tomorrow and wont be back for three weeks (damnit, I hope they have invented some kind of connection to the series of tubes over there.). So I'll let my dawning confusion simmer for a while

Most of it was known to me and I had a patchy sort of understanding of it all, the small mass-portion of the quarks was quite a surprise though and getting to know about the large mass ratio of the gluons!

Btw, the meson (I suppose there's more than one type too!.. (six?? up/down/strange/charm/bottom/top pairs? or can you have a strange-antibottom meson too?!..making.. uh.. 36.. types of mesons?!)) - anywho - would it be fair to say that they cancel their color out by forming say.. "red" plus "anti-red" making "white" while the baryons have red+green+blue making it "white"?
Also.. does it "matter" whether the meson is red+antired or green+antigreen, or is everything content with it being just plain old "white"?

omg.. does this mean you can have, say a (top , down , charm ) baryon? This is getting out of hand

ah damnit it really is a love-hate thing learning stuff like this. ideas and questions run screaming through my mind, spontaneously forming out of this newfound energy, interacting with each other, shooting off new ideas and questions faster than I can put them in black and white.

(can anti-quarks make baryons? does antiblue + antired + antigreen make white too?!) aargh.. too many permutations!

I have to get some sleep. Thanks for the post, I'll be picking up on this later, for sure.

Have a nice weekend. Cheers!

(btw. you're in the UK, but am I making a correct assumption in that you are not natively from there? Not that it matters I just though I noticed some curious word-sequences. Anyways, again, thanks for the post, it is food for though. g'nite!)
Enthalpy
Related interrogation.

All my old arcane texts assert that the strong force is as strong between any nucleon pair (n-p, p-p, n-n).

However, as far as I know, neither a biproton nor a bineutron has been observed, never ever. If such a thing existed, we'd already have seen it, either in a nuclear reactor or in an accelerator. Or at least, we'd have seen its disintegration products.

So could it be that the strong force is important only between a proton and a neutron?

Sorry for interrupting.
AlphaNumeric
QUOTE (johkih+Jun 19 2008, 10:57 PM)
Btw, the meson (I suppose there's more than one type too!.. (six?? up/down/strange/charm/bottom/top pairs? or can you have a strange-antibottom meson too?!..making.. uh..   36.. types of mesons?!)) - anywho - would it be fair to say that they cancel their color out by forming say.. "red" plus "anti-red" making "white" while the baryons have red+green+blue making it "white"?
Also.. does it "matter" whether the meson is red+antired or green+antigreen, or is everything content with it being just plain old "white"?

Yes, that understanding of colour is correct. And yes, there's buckets of mesons and baryons. And some of them have multiple energy states due to resonances.

A particular type of meson will have a triple contribution to a calculation for the 3 colours.
QUOTE (johkih+Jun 19 2008, 10:57 PM)
(can anti-quarks make baryons? does antiblue + antired + antigreen make white too?!) aargh.. too many permutations!
Yes, since antiwhite is white. A baryon made up of 3 antiquarks would be an antibaryon, just as an antiproton is made up of three quarks which are the anti particles of the quarks making up a proton.
QUOTE (johkih+Jun 19 2008, 10:57 PM)
btw. you're in the UK, but am I making a correct assumption in that you are not natively from there? Not that it matters I just though I noticed some curious word-sequences.
No, I'm British. When I'm explaining things, particularly things I enjoy talking about, I tend to flick into a slightly different way of speaking.
Precursor562
QUOTE

Nucleons are made up of quarks, which are held together by gluons. The protons and neutrons are made up of 3 'main' quarks. The up and down quarks in the nucleons have a rest mass of only a few MeV. They make up less than 10% the mass of the nucleons. The rest is made up of binding energy carried by the gluons.

Funny considering gluons have a mass of 0eV.

Z, W+/W- bosons that exist in the nucleus contribute to the rest of the mass of the nucleons.
AlphaNumeric
QUOTE (Precursor562+Jun 21 2008, 02:04 AM)
Funny considering gluons have a mass of 0eV.

Binding energy. Consider what happens during fusion. Several MeV of energy is released, yet the mass of the quarks involved are only of that order of magnitude.

Besides, as I said and as you should know if you know electroweak field theory (as you claimed but never backed up), the mass of the Z and W's are 80~90GeV. The mass of a proton is only ~1GeV. Since the W and Z would only appear due to the uncertainty principle (that's how they are emitted from quarks), if they were contributing to the mass of the proton as you claim, then if we measured the mass of the proton repeatedly we'd find it changed, because the quantum uncertainty of the system would be constrained, via the Quantum Zeno Effect.

If you were correct chemical systems would effect enormous masses beyond their rest mass, because the electron carries weak charge too and so it would experience the same effect when near other electrons. But it doesn't. Electroweak models, pure electroweak models, do not have such a difference between bound states and lone systems.

The effect is purely QCD, due to gluonic confinement. Quarks and gluons cannot be seen as pure states. It's taken until now for us to even be able to work out the rest mass of the quarks making up the proton and neutron to even a rough order of magnitude. We've known the electron's mass accurately, say to about 5 decimal places, for decades. It's taken Lattice QCD supercomputer projects like USQCD and UKQCD to get extract the quark rest masses from the QCD background. We know the mass of the up and down quarks to about 10% [1] Bottom of Pate 2. Lattice methods can be found here [2].

As I said, this is not seen in the non-confined SU(2) electroweak model, which includes the Higgs mechanism and massive Ws and Z. It is only seen in confining theories, like QCD.

When are you going to learn Precursor? Time and again you try to take a pot shot at my physics and time and again you fail. Oddly enough, QFT is quite a complicated topic. You'd know this if you hadn't lied about knowing how to do QFT.

If you want me to get into the details of QCD computational methods, I can. I know a decent quantity about about them. Not at research level but certainly enough to do calculations. I also happen to be in a department which has a huge Lattice QCD group and the guy I sit next to in my office does it. So if you want me to provide a fair few sources about this, I have only to turn to him and ask. What about you? What's your QCD knowledge source? Wikipedia? I bet you don't even know how to prove the gluon doesn't receive mass contributions from virtual loops of quarks. And that's a real easy one!
Precursor562
QUOTE
Binding energy.

Wrong again.

Let's start with the entirely assembled atom whose nucleus is lighter than the sum of the protons and neutrons it is comprised of due to the strong force binding energy.

That is LIGHTER (not heavier) for the entire nucleus (not nucleons) due to the binding energy.

The higher mass of the nucleon over the sum of the quarks within (although not due to bosons since I got the GeV and MeV mixed up) is due to that the quarks are not at rest within the confines of the nucleon.

It's their relativistic mass and not rest mass.

A particle of zero mass (like a gluon) always has zero mass, even at relativistic speeds.

http://www.npl.washington.edu/AV/altvw80.html

QUOTE (->
 QUOTE Binding energy.

Wrong again.

Let's start with the entirely assembled atom whose nucleus is lighter than the sum of the protons and neutrons it is comprised of due to the strong force binding energy.

That is LIGHTER (not heavier) for the entire nucleus (not nucleons) due to the binding energy.

The higher mass of the nucleon over the sum of the quarks within (although not due to bosons since I got the GeV and MeV mixed up) is due to that the quarks are not at rest within the confines of the nucleon.

It's their relativistic mass and not rest mass.

A particle of zero mass (like a gluon) always has zero mass, even at relativistic speeds.

http://www.npl.washington.edu/AV/altvw80.html

A composite particle may be either lighter or heavier than the sum of its components at rest. A nucleus (size about 10^-13 m) is slightly lighter than the neutrons and protons from which it is made due to the strong- force binding energy that holds the nucleus together. It "costs" about 8 MeV of energy to pull each neutron or proton loose from its nuclear binding, so an assembled nucleus has about 1% less mass-energy than its disassembled components.

On the other hand, the proton (size about 10^-15 m) is much heavier than the combined masses of its three components (two up quarks and one down quark). The proton's mass in energy units is 938 MeV, while the up quark has a mass of only about 4 MeV and the down quark about 7 MeV. The majority of the proton's mass comes from the kinetic energy of its quark components. Within a proton the quarks are confined to a "box" only 10^-15 m across. Heisenberg's uncertainty principle dictates that the product of uncertainties in position and momentum must be greater than h-bar, so a quark localized to 10^-15 m must have a momentum uncertainty of at least 197 MeV in energy units. The energy contributions from three quarks having about this momentum in each of three space directions approximately equals the proton mass. The proton thus derives its net mass energy mainly from the internal motions of its constituent quarks, not from their rest masses.
Dr Fred A Wolf
QUOTE (Precursor562+Jun 21 2008, 11:52 PM)

Wrong again.

Let's start with the entirely assembled atom whose nucleus is lighter than the sum of the protons and neutrons it is comprised of due to the strong force binding energy.

That is LIGHTER (not heavier) for the entire nucleus (not nucleons) due to the binding energy.

The higher mass of the nucleon over the sum of the quarks within (although not due to bosons since I got the GeV and MeV mixed up) is due to that the quarks are not at rest within the confines of the nucleon.

It's their relativistic mass and not rest mass.

A particle of zero mass (like a gluon) always has zero mass, even at relativistic speeds.

http://www.npl.washington.edu/AV/altvw80.html

Oh deary, deary, deary, dear - are you in for it, you complete idiot fukker.

Cue - Alphanumeric.
AlphaNumeric
QUOTE (Precursor562+Jun 22 2008, 12:52 AM)
Let's start with the entirely assembled atom whose nucleus is lighter than the sum of the protons and neutrons it is comprised of due to the strong force binding energy.

That is LIGHTER (not heavier) for the entire nucleus (not nucleons) due to the binding energy.

So binding energy is a quantified thing. I didn't talk about the binding energy between nucleuons. What binds protons and neutrons together? Meson interactions. What forms mesons? Quarks and gluons. Just as with protons and neutrons, the mesons are considerably more massive than their two constituent quarks. There's a lot of energy in there and it's all held together by gluons.
QUOTE (Precursor562+Jun 22 2008, 12:52 AM)
The higher mass of the nucleon over the sum of the quarks within (although not due to bosons since I got the GeV and MeV mixed up) is due to that the quarks are not at rest within the confines of the nucleon.
So you were wrong? You got the MeV and GeV mixed up? I thought you said you knew electroweak theory? You don't get electroweak theory wrong by getting MeV and GeV mixed up, you should have known that the weak bosons are HUGE compared to even an entire proton.
QUOTE (Precursor562+Jun 22 2008, 12:52 AM)
A particle of zero mass (like a gluon) always has zero mass, even at relativistic speeds.
I know. Infact, I even asked you in my last post if you knew how to prove that the gluon don't receive mass corrections due to loop processes (since it can turn into bunches of quarks and back again as it moves through space-time).

Oh and your sentence is nonsense, since if it's got zero rest mass it ALWAYS moves at the most relativistic speed of all, that of light. So it's not 'zero mass, even at relativistic speed', the first implies it's only got one speed.

Yet again, you get the concepts wrong, never mind the details.
QUOTE (Precursor562+Jun 22 2008, 12:52 AM)
http://www.npl.washington.edu/AV/altvw80.html
Which goes completely a different direction from what you said.

Ultra relativistic quarks can only be ultra relativistic in a particular direction for a short period of time, or else they wouldn't stay in the nucleus. The powerful method to keep them in place are the gluons. They work such that the further quarks are apart, the harder they pull. And the system contains energy. For instance, they are constantly moving far enough apart that there's so much energy in the gluon exchange that the gluon 'flux tube' snaps and a meson is formed. This means that the energy of the moving quarks went into gluonic energy and then back into more quarks. Whenever too much energy goes from quarks to gluons, the gluons make more quarks. It's a constant seething sea of activity. This is the problem with QCD, it's strongly coupled and confining, though I'm sure you had to look up what 'confining' means.

It's clear that you assumed you knew the answer, then when I said "You're wrong" you went and looked for it. And you found an answer dirrect from what you'd said. But you didn't skip a beat in posting it. After all, you being wrong is brushed aside if you can show me wrong. But the way QCD works is the constant holding together of quarks (that's the binding energy I refer to, since I talked about the proton mass, not the mass of a nucleus compared to it's lone components, keep up!) using highly energetic and coupled gluons.

For instance, in the LHC the particle production is done entirely by gluons. A super energetic gluon is exchanged between protons and then it turns into a shower of other things, or pairs of gluons interact.

Your comment about the gluon having zero mass is irrelevent. I know. And my question was supposed to make you go and check to see what I know. Look up The Ward Identity. It's a symmetry which constraints the photon and the gluon to be protected from renormalisation effects to their propogators by particle loop effects. But just as electromagnetism can carry energy, so can the gluons. They are like super powerful strings in the nucleons, constantly shuffling energy around between the quarks, slowing them down and speeding them up.

I'll ask my Lattice QCD friend about it tomorrow. If he's in...
Precursor562
QUOTE
So you were wrong? You got the MeV and GeV mixed up? I thought you said you knew electroweak theory? You don't get electroweak theory wrong by getting MeV and GeV mixed up, you should have known that the weak bosons are HUGE compared to even an entire proton.

It's quite simple for someone who has comprehension.

I got the MeV and GeV mixed up in that if a proton had a mass of over 900GeV then easily the majority of the mass can be comprised of bosons. After all, bosons do exist within the nucleus.

Since the nucleons are smaller in mass than even one z/w+/w- boson then clearly the mass of such bosons don't contribute to the mass of the nucleons.

QUOTE (->
 QUOTE So you were wrong? You got the MeV and GeV mixed up? I thought you said you knew electroweak theory? You don't get electroweak theory wrong by getting MeV and GeV mixed up, you should have known that the weak bosons are HUGE compared to even an entire proton.

It's quite simple for someone who has comprehension.

I got the MeV and GeV mixed up in that if a proton had a mass of over 900GeV then easily the majority of the mass can be comprised of bosons. After all, bosons do exist within the nucleus.

Since the nucleons are smaller in mass than even one z/w+/w- boson then clearly the mass of such bosons don't contribute to the mass of the nucleons.

Oh and your sentence is nonsense, since if it's got zero rest mass it ALWAYS moves at the most relativistic speed of all, that of light. So it's not 'zero mass, even at relativistic speed', the first implies it's only got one speed.

Given a particle of a specific rest mass. As the velocity of the particle reaches the speed of light, the mass increases. If a given particle has a rest mass of zero then as the velocity of the particle reaches the speed of light, the mass remains zero.

A particle with a mass of zero has no mass to contribute.

QUOTE
What binds protons and neutrons together? Meson interactions. What forms mesons? Quarks and gluons. Just as with protons and neutrons, the mesons are considerably more massive than their two constituent quarks. There's a lot of energy in there and it's all held together by gluons.

Is this supposed to explain that the mass of the nucleus is less than the sum mass of the nucleons it is comprised of?

QUOTE (->
 QUOTE What binds protons and neutrons together? Meson interactions. What forms mesons? Quarks and gluons. Just as with protons and neutrons, the mesons are considerably more massive than their two constituent quarks. There's a lot of energy in there and it's all held together by gluons.

Is this supposed to explain that the mass of the nucleus is less than the sum mass of the nucleons it is comprised of?

Oh and your sentence is nonsense, since if it's got zero rest mass it ALWAYS moves at the most relativistic speed of all, that of light. So it's not 'zero mass, even at relativistic speed', the first implies it's only got one speed.

I simply stated that gluons have zero mass regardless of momentum. They, therefore don't contribute to the mass of the nucleons.

I knew they couldn't and I also knew the "binding energy" also didn't. Was I right with the bosons? Nope. It was definitely a better shot at it than what you gave. After all, you are supposed to be the one that educated in this stuff, yet you didn't even know what comprised the mass of the nucleons.

Truth is you may be well read, but you're a complete fake.

QUOTE
Ultra relativistic quarks can only be ultra relativistic in a particular direction for a short period of time, or else they wouldn't stay in the nucleus.

That's the whole point of the strong force. To keep the quarks from flying apart. It means the quarks can be moving at relativistic speeds and still stay within the nucleus. Which they do. It is the relativistic mass that makes up the mass of the nucleons. Nothing else.

All your talk of particle interaction and conversion means nothing.

QUOTE (->
 QUOTE Ultra relativistic quarks can only be ultra relativistic in a particular direction for a short period of time, or else they wouldn't stay in the nucleus.

That's the whole point of the strong force. To keep the quarks from flying apart. It means the quarks can be moving at relativistic speeds and still stay within the nucleus. Which they do. It is the relativistic mass that makes up the mass of the nucleons. Nothing else.

All your talk of particle interaction and conversion means nothing.

For instance, they are constantly moving far enough apart that there's so much energy in the gluon exchange that the gluon 'flux tube' snaps and a meson is formed.

Link to reference. I'm curious as to how a the snapping together of quarks can produce a quark/anti-quark pair (such is the meson).

QUOTE
This means that the energy of the moving quarks went into gluonic energy and then back into more quarks.

You want to talk about the irrelevant. Also another reference to this as well. Although the gluons are responsible to keep the quarks together (and keep the nucleus together), I really hope you are not implying that the momentum of the quarks gets passed on the gluons, then back again.
AlphaNumeric
QUOTE (Precursor562+Jun 23 2008, 03:13 AM)
I got the MeV and GeV mixed up in that if a proton had a mass of over 900GeV then easily the majority of the mass can be comprised of bosons.  After all, bosons do exist within the nucleus.

But anyone who knows anything about phenomenological QFT knows the proton mass is about 1GeV. It's like not knowing hydrogen is the first element in the periodic table and you're a chemist.
QUOTE (Precursor562+Jun 23 2008, 03:13 AM)
Given a particle of a specific rest mass. As the velocity of the particle reaches the speed of light, the mass increases. If a given particle has a rest mass of zero then as the velocity of the particle reaches the speed of light, the mass remains zero.

A particle with a mass of zero has no mass to contribute.
*sigh* Didn't understand what I said, did you?

A particle with zero rest mass cannot move at any speed other than that of light. It's moving along a null geodesic. A particle with mass can move at any velocity below light speed, it just needs a lot of energy for most velocities. So you put in more energy and it accelerates. But a photon or a gluon can NEVER be below light speed because that would mean they aren't moving along a null geodesic and they MUST have rest mass in that case.

Just consider the 4-momentum of a particle p^a and how it relates to rest mass.

Do you want me to fill in the blanks?
QUOTE (Precursor562+Jun 23 2008, 03:13 AM)
Is this supposed to explain that the mass of the nucleus is less than the sum mass of the nucleons it is comprised of?
No, I'm talking about the proton being MUCH greater than the sum of the quarks.
QUOTE (Precursor562+Jun 23 2008, 03:13 AM)
I simply stated that gluons have zero mass regardless of momentum. They, therefore don't contribute to the mass of the nucleons.
You do realise that gluons can have energy right? And bound states of quarks and gluons receive mass from their energy? Glue balls are made up entirely out of gluons on a colour singlet and yet they have mass. Infact, it's one of the Clay Millenium Prizes to prove that a confining theory has a mass gap. That means that any bound state, be it made of quarks and gluons or just gluons, will have positive mass. A huge amount of evidence for it exists from experiments and Lattice calculatiosn but the analytic proof is currently not known. But even bound states of gluons can have positive mass. Sans quarks.
QUOTE (Precursor562+Jun 23 2008, 03:13 AM)
I knew they couldn't and I also knew the "binding energy" also didn't. Was I right with the bosons? Nope. It was definitely a better shot at it than what you gave. After all, you are supposed to be the one that educated in this stuff, yet you didn't even know what comprised the mass of the nucleons.
For a start, it's not needed to be competant at QCD, because nucleons are strongly interacting systems and the only real method we have of investigating that is lattice methods.

Secondly, I have explained how gluons can carry energy which contributes to mass.

Thirdly, it would seem all you're doing is Googling as much as possible. Jumping from one misunderstanding to another.
QUOTE (Precursor562+Jun 23 2008, 03:13 AM)
Truth is you may be well read, but you're a complete fake.
Yeah, it's not like I can do QCD calculations or anything....

Oh look, a university website. What a faker I am!
QUOTE (Precursor562+Jun 23 2008, 03:13 AM)
That's the whole point of the strong force. To keep the quarks from flying apart. It means the quarks can be moving at relativistic speeds and still stay within the nucleus. Which they do. It is the relativistic mass that makes up the mass of the nucleons. Nothing else.

All your talk of particle interaction and conversion means nothing.
Your extensive knowledge of QFT told you that? Told you that gluons cannot carry energy? That the energy in a QCD system is constantly being exchanged between quarks and gluons?
QUOTE (Precursor562+Jun 23 2008, 03:13 AM)
Link to reference. I'm curious as to how a the snapping together of quarks can produce a quark/anti-quark pair (such is the meson).
I thought you knew QCD? Besides, they don't snap together, the flux tube snaps. And since the gluons carry so much energy they can then produce more quarks.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_confinement
QUOTE (Precursor562+Jun 23 2008, 03:13 AM)
You want to talk about the irrelevant. Also another reference to this as well. Although the gluons are responsible to keep the quarks together (and keep the nucleus together), I really hope you are not implying that the momentum of the quarks gets passed on the gluons, then back again.
Photons carry momentum between electromagnetically charged particles like electrons. Photoelectric effect? So why can't gluons do it now? After all, they have a well defined 4-momentum, just as photons do. They move along null geodesics, just as photons do. What makes them different is confinement and self interaction. If you knew about QCD in any actual detail, you'd know that the derivation of the gluon Lagrangian follows pretty much exactly the same lines as that of the photon except you have to take into account the colour aspect, which is non-trivial compared to that of the photon.

Oh wait, I do precisely that derivation in the pdf I just linked to! What luck! Go have a read and realise, again, you're in over your head. No doubt if I asked you to demonstrate you could do any QCD you'd refuse and continue Wiki'ing and Googling wildly whenever I use terms you aren't familiar with but which are second nature to anyone who can do QFT.
Precursor562
QUOTE
You do realise that gluons can have energy right?

Energy doesn't equate to mass.

E = pc is a perfect example of that. The only way for a particle to have mass at relativistic speeds is if it has mass at rest.

It all doesn't matter because you are still wrong in that the gluons (and their energy) doesn't make up the "missing" mass. The mass of nucleons is the relativistic mass of its quarks and not the rest mass of the quarks. This is something that has been tested to be true.
Enthalpy
No answer to the bineutron and biproton?

Instead of wasting time with Precursor's noise!
AlphaNumeric
QUOTE (Precursor562+Jun 23 2008, 05:18 PM)
Energy doesn't equate to mass.

E = pc is a perfect example of that.  The only way for a particle to have mass at relativistic speeds is if it has mass at rest.

It's funny, I give an example (the glue ball) and I even mention a concept which is worth \$1 million and Precursor just comes out with "Well it's obvious!"

Feel free to let the Clay Institute know about your 'result' and win yourself a million bucks.
QUOTE (Precursor562+Jun 23 2008, 05:18 PM)
It all doesn't matter because you are still wrong in that the gluons (and their energy) doesn't make up the "missing" mass. The mass of nucleons is the relativistic mass of its quarks and not the rest mass of the quarks. This is something that has been tested to be true..
Then I was partly wrong. Some of it is gluonic, some of it quark. The amount if constantly shifting about between the gluons and the quarks.

And I love how you ignored my demonstration gluons can carry momentum, just like photons. Did you not want to respond to that? Or how about the velocity of massless particles? Or how I just demonstrated I'm a university student with graduate level knowledge of QCD, including renormalisation? I'm not such a faker now am I? And you couldn't even swallow your pride to say "I was wrong". I even gave a talk on it to professors who work in QCD methods, including the Lattice stuff I mentioned.

Why didn't you respond to that Precursor?
QUOTE (Enthalpy+Jun 20 2008, 12:40 AM)
So could it be that the strong force is important only between a proton and a neutron?
The method by which a proton stablises a neutron (neutrons decay into protons and electrons in a half life of about 15 minutes when they are free) is not well understood. Something about the exchange of mesons means that the quarks don't decay via weak boson emission. Proton+Proton -> Deuterium + positron (and a neutrino) because diprotons aren't stable, the energies involved in getting two charges that close, without the 'glue' of neutrons to help hold them together, is too much and it prompts a decay.

Precursor562
QUOTE
The amount if constantly shifting about between the gluons and the quarks.

I guess you can say whatever you want on the matter when you know nobody will be able to find out otherwise. I've searched for anything on the transferring of kinetic energy (momentum) from gluons to quarks and vise versa. Couldn't find anything other than plasmas and jets.

http://www.npl.washington.edu/AV/altvw80.html

QUOTE (->
 QUOTE The amount if constantly shifting about between the gluons and the quarks.

I guess you can say whatever you want on the matter when you know nobody will be able to find out otherwise. I've searched for anything on the transferring of kinetic energy (momentum) from gluons to quarks and vise versa. Couldn't find anything other than plasmas and jets.

http://www.npl.washington.edu/AV/altvw80.html

A composite particle may be either lighter or heavier than the sum of its components at rest. A nucleus (size about 10^-13 m) is slightly lighter than the neutrons and protons from which it is made due to the strong- force binding energy that holds the nucleus together. It "costs" about 8 MeV of energy to pull each neutron or proton loose from its nuclear binding, so an assembled nucleus has about 1% less mass-energy than its disassembled components.

On the other hand, the proton (size about 10^-15 m) is much heavier than the combined masses of its three components (two up quarks and one down quark). The proton's mass in energy units is 938 MeV, while the up quark has a mass of only about 4 MeV and the down quark about 7 MeV. The majority of the proton's mass comes from the kinetic energy of its quark components. Within a proton the quarks are confined to a "box" only 10^-15 m across. Heisenberg's uncertainty principle dictates that the product of uncertainties in position and momentum must be greater than h-bar, so a quark localized to 10^-15 m must have a momentum uncertainty of at least 197 MeV in energy units. The energy contributions from three quarks having about this momentum in each of three space directions approximately equals the proton mass. The proton thus derives its net mass energy mainly from the internal motions of its constituent quarks, not from their rest masses.

The binding energy doesn't add to the mass of the nucleons. The binding energy apparently takes away from the mass of an entire nucleus. Yet this same energy is supposed to add to the mass of the individual nucleons. Not surprising that "your word" is the only thing we have to go by.

Fake, Fake, Fake. You think that pdf's and a website is proof of anything? All it proves is that you spend more time on the computer and internet than what can be determined by your time on these forums. Anyone can get a web page and fill it with material collected from a nearby institution (changing any particulars they wish). Anyone can also get their hands on pdf's. All provided they have the time throughout the day to do it. You think that bogus scanned certificate is supposed to mean anything. It's not a diploma, it is simply a certificate of attendance. A simple print out that they would give to people who visited for whatever reason.

The fact you constantly argue against references, misunderstand information and bring in irrelevant material and pretend it is relevant (oh how you love to do that one) only act as holes in the shroud. Yes I was wrong but I'm also not the one that claims to be an expert on this. So your chemistry analogy falls miles short. As I don't claim myself a "chemist" and so it is understandable to "not know that hydrogen is the first element on the chart". You on the other hand can't say the same. You claimed yourself to be the "chemist" and yet you clearly didn't know "that hydrogen is the first element on the chart". You don't even have the common sense to know that you don't need to know about open boxes to be able to work with limits regarding functions. The fact that open boxes weren't even mentioned when functions and limits were taught in high school should have been the knock on the head but you so pathetically ignorant and retarded that you simply toss such a truth aside. Another hole in the shroud where anyone who is currently in high school being taught functions and limits with no mention of open boxes can see straight through.

What's even worse, is that others here fall for it. Well read, sure but formerly trained, definitely not. You no doubt have bookmarks to reference material where you take info when necessary but it is your lack of understanding that results in you bringing in irrelevant material as often as you do. You'll no doubt continue to argue against the reference material I provided which spells it out quite nicely by specifically saying that the mass of the nucleons is almost completely the relativistic mass of the quarks it is comprised of. No mention of gluons other than the strong force they carry which simply confines the quarks to a specific volume of space and take away from the mass of the entire nucleus.

You would think that an article talking about the mass of nucleons would include the contributions of gluons, unless they don't (at least in no significant amount).

Another clear evidence of maturity comes from the spamming of the feedback. That's all I'll say on that one.
AlphaNumeric
QUOTE (Precursor562+Jun 24 2008, 02:17 AM)
I guess you can say whatever you want on the matter when you know nobody will be able to find out otherwise.

So I've demonstrated gluons carry energy and that energy is transfered to and from the quarks. Your method for "You're wrong" is that you cannot find evidence which says otherwise. Absense of proof is not proof of absense.
QUOTE (Precursor562+Jun 24 2008, 02:17 AM)
The binding energy doesn't add to the mass of the nucleons. The binding energy apparently takes away from the mass of an entire nucleus. Yet this same energy is supposed to add to the mass of the individual nucleons. Not surprising that "your word" is the only thing we have to go by.
I can only assume you are either not reading my replies or deliberately being thick. I specifically clarified what I mean by 'binding energy', the energy holding the quarks together, not the nucleons. It was clear from my first post that I was talking about the inside of nucleons and how they have more mass than their constituent quarks. You even responded to that with your "It's the weak bosons" comment. Now you respond to the same comments with an entirely different interpretation of them.

I'm aware inter-nucleon binding energy reduces the mass. But as I was talking about quarks, gluons and the increase of mass the 'binding energy' I refered to is obviously the internal energy in a nucleon.
QUOTE (Precursor562+Jun 24 2008, 02:17 AM)
Fake, Fake, Fake. You think that pdf's and a website is proof of anything? All it proves is that you spend more time on the computer and internet than what can be determined by your time on these forums. Anyone can get a web page and fill it with material collected from a nearby institution (changing any particulars they wish). Anyone can also get their hands on pdf's. .
So I'm on the list of PhD students because? I've given interneral seminars (March 13th) because? My website is linked to from the list of PhD students because?
QUOTE (Precursor562+Jun 24 2008, 02:17 AM)
Anyone can also get their hands on pdf's. .
Go on then.
QUOTE (Precursor562+Jun 24 2008, 02:17 AM)
All provided they have the time throughout the day to do it. You think that bogus scanned certificate is supposed to mean anything. It's not a diploma, it is simply a certificate of attendance. A simple print out that they would give to people who visited for whatever reason.
You think they give certificated which say "Degree" on them because someone attended an open day? How do you explain me rowing for my college? How do you explain that years before I came here I was posting on NRich saying I was on the Trinity network? Notice my name is in blue, which means I'm a student or ex-student from Cambridge doing maths or physics. Feel free to check that.

If you want, I can get ahold of the photo of me having my degree confired on me by Sir Martin Rees, the master of my college. It's at my parents home and I'm at university at the moment but I can get it when I'm home. And since you know my name now, I'll find where I saved the unedited picture of the degree certificate and post it.

It's funny, the three people who deny all that evidence are Kaneda, you and Ubanatuva. The three people who most deny I am who I say I am and who think I'd manage to fake two different university websites, an independent one with photos of me rowing in my college colours, multiple other websites years before I came here, a paper where I'm named in the area of work I do and a degree certificate (which you never bothered to confirm with anyone is what a Cambridge certificate for a degree looks like) and somehow I continue to fake them

You'd look a lot less completely delusional if you just said "Turns out I'm wrong". Or can you explain how I manage to fake all those websites, despite them being updated by the institutions in question? Heck for the NRich one I had to have a criminal background check done just to post in blue rather than black, because I 'represented the university' in an official capacity.
QUOTE (Precursor562+Jun 24 2008, 02:17 AM)
You don't even have the common sense to know that you don't need to know about open boxes to be able to work with limits regarding functions.
Find me a set of analysis lecture notes or a book on rigorous analysis which doesn't use open balls and I'll accept I'm wrong. In a thread on mathematical rigour you claim you don't need to use rigour to be rigorous.

It's possible to do limits without using open balls, if you're not doing anything rigorously, or you make use of a proven result, like lim (1/x) = 0 as x->infty. However, how was that proven originally? Open balls.

And it's funny you bring in open balls. A fortnight ago you didn't even know what they were, despite having participated in a lengthy thread where Euler and I made frequent use of them. StevenA complained we were being slack in our notation so we used the proper one. He refused to. If you'd not lied about having read that book on analysis, you'd have known about open balls too.

What was that hypocrisy about being a faker?
QUOTE (Precursor562+Jun 24 2008, 02:17 AM)
he fact that open boxes weren't even mentioned when functions and limits were taught in high school should have been the knock on the head but you so pathetically ignorant and retarded that you simply toss such a truth aside. Another hole in the shroud where anyone who is currently in high school being taught functions and limits with no mention of open boxes can see straight through.
Ah the "I wasn't taught rigour in high school and therefore why would anyone else need it?". You weren't taught the proper way to define derivatives either, but you still made use of them but you could do that because someone had made it all rigorous. The fact someone paved the way for you to use a simpler method by doing the complicated justification you never see doesn't mean that justification isn't there.

For instance, can you prove that pi is transcendental? But you know it is. But you know someone else has proven it using methods you don't know. It's stated in high school maths but you never see the proof. Most of high school physics you never see the derivation of equations you've handed. You don't even use calculus in high school physics in the UK any more. Does this mean physics itself doesn't use calculus or that it's deemed too complicated for the students?

Rigour in maths is deemed overkill for high school students so you're handed the results and maybe a token, often flawed, derivation of a few simple results.
QUOTE (Precursor562+Jun 24 2008, 02:17 AM)
Well read, sure but formerly trained, definitely not. You no doubt have bookmarks to reference material where you take info when necessary but it is your lack of understanding that results in you bringing in irrelevant material as often as you do.
Ah, you don't understand it so it's irrelevent. And I supposedly fake all those websites just for you and Kaneda and Ub. The three of you show staggering egotism.

And why is it that I seem to be able to talk about such a wide range of topics, often in quick fire threads? Do you think I am able to filter through such huge amounts of information in a matter of minutes and provide relevent responses? Funny how the only people who think my replies are largely irrelevent are the people claiming to know physics but don't. Farsight, you, StevenA, Kaneda and Ub.

You claimed you knew more about QFT than me. Want to put it to the test? Of course, as I've linked to, I've given talks on field theory to professors. Sat and passed exams in them. I now help teach QM to 2nd years. Well, unless you continue to believe I maintain a huge number of fake websites, inside offical ones...
QUOTE (Precursor562+Jun 24 2008, 02:17 AM)
No mention of gluons other than the strong force they carry which simply confines the quarks to a specific volume of space and take away from the mass of the entire nucleus.
And as I explained, internucleon forces are the result of meson interactions, not gluons. Gluons never leave the nucleons. Didn't you follow my explaination and the Wikipedia pages you've just combed through?
QUOTE (Precursor562+Jun 24 2008, 02:17 AM)

You would think that an article talking about the mass of nucleons would include the contributions of gluons, unless they don't (at least in no significant amount).
The one about confinement demonstrates gluon energy is an important effect. The glue balls article demonstrates they can carry non-zero rest mass in a bound state.

Why did you ignore those bits? As I said, if you can prove there's a bound state in QCD which has zero mass then you can win \$1million. By your claims the glue balls are all zero rest mass. As this says "This means that it is impossible to have free color charges like free gluons. In the absence of such a confinement, we would expect to see massless gluons, but since they are confined, all we see are color-neutral bound states of gluons, called glueballs. All the glueballs are massive, which is why we expect a mass gap.".

So gluonic energy can contribute to rest mass. Why did you ignore that? Why aren't you claiming your million dollars? Why are you still ignoring my correction of you about photons carrying momentum? Didn't you know photons carried momentum? I thought you knew QFT better than me?
QUOTE (Precursor562+Jun 24 2008, 02:17 AM)
Another clear evidence of maturity comes from the spamming of the feedback. That's all I'll say on that one..
When I see you make a claim you don't and never intend to back up or which is blatently false, such as you knowing QFT, you being better at QFT than me, you knowing analysis, you have read a book on analysis, you claiming to know analysis better than professors, those kinds of things, I neg rep you. The fact you do it so often that I have neg repped you a lot is a testiment to your continued prefer for lying over admitting ignorance. I don't know much MSSM. I don't know much, if any, Lattice QCD, beyond the basic construction of their methods. I do know a decent (as measured in terms of grad students) amount of QFT, relativity and particular sections of string theory (Type II and sugra methods). Is it arrogance to be confident in those? No, because unlike you when I'm challenged to do some of it, I do.
Euler
It's a big conspiracy! AlphaNumeric is employed by the government to suppress original thinking, uphold the lies about 1=0.9r and to promote mathematical untruths such as |a-b| = |b-a|,,,

Ssshhhh!
Enthalpy

Proton stabilizing the neutron: as you put, the biproton is unstable, so the beta decay neutron->proton is unfavourable near another proton due to the electric potential. Or equivalently, the d -> u decay is unfavourable near too many u. But you'd probably prefer a detailed process rather than an energy comparison.

Errrrr... I'm leaning very far out of the window here and should better go back to steel and electronics.

As for the bineutron, any lifetime near the neutron's 15 min would have allowed to observe it, and an immediate transformation to deuterium would have left deuterium, observable for instance in light water reactors.

In the paper you link, you could have put a section "special thanks and acknowledgements", to provide me with something I can understand.
Precursor562
QUOTE
When I see you make a claim you don't and never intend to back up or which is blatently false,

Gluon energy doesn't contribute to the mass of the nucleon with any significant degree. Not nearly as much with what you claim. There is also no transferring of momentum from gluons to quarks and vise versa (a statement you have yet to back up). As for my statement here.....

....here is my back up.

http://www.npl.washington.edu/AV/altvw80.html
AlphaNumeric
QUOTE (Precursor562+Jun 24 2008, 04:17 PM)
Not nearly as much with what you claim.

Please explain how gluo balls have masses of at least 1TeV then.
QUOTE (Precursor562+Jun 24 2008, 04:17 PM)
There is also no transferring of momentum from gluons to quarks
Bwahahaha!! Are you still claiming gluons have no momentum? Proof you don't know any QCD! You do know photons carry momentum, right :

"Apart from having energy, a photon also carries momentum and has a polarization. "

The gluon is described in exactly the same manner except it's gauge potential carries an su(3) Lie algebra value, rather than a u(1) value.

The 4-vector of any object is written as p^a = (E,p), where E is the energy of the object and p is it's 3-momentum (c=1 units). The gluon has non-zero momentum vector, so E>0 and |p|>0. It's massless, so E^2 = |p|^2, so E = |p|.

Therefore, the value of it's energy is equal to the mod of its momentum. ITS MOMENTUM. Even a quick Google brings up things like this. My work derives the Lagrangian contribution for the gluon and shows how it is analogous to the photon, except with a non-abelian term.
QUOTE (Precursor562+Jun 24 2008, 04:17 PM)
As for my statement here.....

....here is my back up.
Let's see. Does it say gluons have no omentum? Nope. Does it say gluons have no energy? Nope. Does it say glueballs are massless? Nope. Does it say flux tubes of gluons don't carry energy? Nope.

The link I provided about confinement shows how the flux tube of gluons 'snaps' when the quarks are far enough apart and the energy in the gluons becomes more quarks. The energy which was in the quarks goes into the gluons, the quarks slow down, the 'tension' in the tube gets too high, it 'snaps' and the gluons produce more quarks. Meson production in a nutshell.

I cannot help but notice you didn't answer my question. Do you still think I'm a fake? With all those different websites corroberating my story? I'm mentioned in a paper, I have my name on the members of a theoretical physics group in a university, I have a photo of me rowing for my Cambridge college, I'm a member of the 'Cambridge team' on NRich, I have given talks about gluons to professors, I have given talks on orbifolds and compact dimensions to the same people.

So do you still think I'm 'a faker'? If so, how do you explain all those different independent sources of information dating back years?

Oh and just today I arranged to start a new project within my PhD on the topic of AdS/CFT, which uses string gravitational models to explain QCD processes. I'll be reading up on it this evening.
Delia
I fear the only gluon Precursor743 truly understands relates to a sheet of pre-primary school paper intended for creative under 3 year-old artistry involving sparkly fairy-dust and pasta shapes.

Precursor562
QUOTE
Are you still claiming gluons have no momentum?

Does momentum equal mass? NOPE.

http://www.npl.washington.edu/AV/altvw80.html

QUOTE (->
 QUOTE Are you still claiming gluons have no momentum?

Does momentum equal mass? NOPE.

http://www.npl.washington.edu/AV/altvw80.html

A composite particle may be either lighter or heavier than the sum of its components at rest. A nucleus (size about 10^-13 m) is slightly lighter than the neutrons and protons from which it is made due to the strong- force binding energy that holds the nucleus together. It "costs" about 8 MeV of energy to pull each neutron or proton loose from its nuclear binding, so an assembled nucleus has about 1% less mass-energy than its disassembled components.

On the other hand, the proton (size about 10^-15 m) is much heavier than the combined masses of its three components (two up quarks and one down quark). The proton's mass in energy units is 938 MeV, while the up quark has a mass of only about 4 MeV and the down quark about 7 MeV. The majority of the proton's mass comes from the kinetic energy of its quark components. Within a proton the quarks are confined to a "box" only 10^-15 m across. Heisenberg's uncertainty principle dictates that the product of uncertainties in position and momentum must be greater than h-bar, so a quark localized to 10^-15 m must have a momentum uncertainty of at least 197 MeV in energy units. The energy contributions from three quarks having about this momentum in each of three space directions approximately equals the proton mass. The proton thus derives its net mass energy mainly from the internal motions of its constituent quarks, not from their rest masses.

QUOTE
Please explain how gluo balls have masses of at least 1TeV then.

Another referenceless statement. Highly trivial, unobserved, theoretical phenomena is hardly an explanation to anything. Also once again the introduction of irrelevant material. In no way does it mean anything regarding the mass of nucleons.

http://www.npl.washington.edu/AV/altvw80.html

QUOTE (->
 QUOTE Please explain how gluo balls have masses of at least 1TeV then.

Another referenceless statement. Highly trivial, unobserved, theoretical phenomena is hardly an explanation to anything. Also once again the introduction of irrelevant material. In no way does it mean anything regarding the mass of nucleons.

http://www.npl.washington.edu/AV/altvw80.html

A composite particle may be either lighter or heavier than the sum of its components at rest. A nucleus (size about 10^-13 m) is slightly lighter than the neutrons and protons from which it is made due to the strong- force binding energy that holds the nucleus together. It "costs" about 8 MeV of energy to pull each neutron or proton loose from its nuclear binding, so an assembled nucleus has about 1% less mass-energy than its disassembled components.

On the other hand, the proton (size about 10^-15 m) is much heavier than the combined masses of its three components (two up quarks and one down quark). The proton's mass in energy units is 938 MeV, while the up quark has a mass of only about 4 MeV and the down quark about 7 MeV. The majority of the proton's mass comes from the kinetic energy of its quark components. Within a proton the quarks are confined to a "box" only 10^-15 m across. Heisenberg's uncertainty principle dictates that the product of uncertainties in position and momentum must be greater than h-bar, so a quark localized to 10^-15 m must have a momentum uncertainty of at least 197 MeV in energy units. The energy contributions from three quarks having about this momentum in each of three space directions approximately equals the proton mass. The proton thus derives its net mass energy mainly from the internal motions of its constituent quarks, not from their rest masses.
DavidD
I read in one book-textbook, that with imagination possible to go very far... nucleons consist of quarks, quarks of preons, preons of stupidons1, stupidons1 of stupidons2, stupidons2 of stupidons3 and so on.
AlphaNumeric
QUOTE (Precursor562+Jun 25 2008, 11:47 AM)
Does momentum equal mass?  NOPE.

Where did I say that?

Can you explain how the photon has momentum, an observed amount, yet has no rest mass.

Can you explain how the LHC and Fermilab work if gluons cannot carry momentum?

By the way, you do realise the title of your link is "The Alternate View"? It's entire existence of the claim that quarks have internal structure. A view which has failed to find experimental support in the 12 years since publication. A view which was not published in a journal, it was just submitted.. The publication is WAS published in is a science fiction journal.

Is that the best you can manage? Find me a reputable journal publication which has at least 5 citations.
QUOTE (Precursor562+Jun 25 2008, 11:47 AM)
Another referenceless statement. Highly trivial, unobserved, theoretical phenomena is hardly an explanation to anything. Also once again the introduction of irrelevant material. In no way does it mean anything regarding the mass of nucleons.
It's funny, you refuse to actually learn any QCD to understand QCD and then complain you don't understand any.

Can you explain how the gluon and photon are both described in the same manner, ie the Maxwell EM tensor-like structure F_ab, and both carry non-zero 3-momentum in the model, if one has momentum and the other doesn't?

Where in my work is the mistake then? Going from which equation to which and what should it be and why?

Find me a journal reference which specifically says "The gluon can carry no momentum" which has at least 5 citations. And if the gluons can carry no mass, explain glueballs. All you do is say "Irrelevent". If our models predict the gluons have contributions to mass, then explain how our models of gluonic systems are irrelevent?
DavidD
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+Jun 25 2008, 01:39 PM)
Can you explain how the photon has momentum, an observed amount, yet has no rest mass.

I can explain. Need photon energy devide by c^2. hf/c^2, thats how!
Precursor562
QUOTE
Where did I say that?

Your the one that brought the gluon's momentum into a discussion involving mass. I'm simply saying "so what". They have momentum, what's your point. The quarks have momentum too. Again, so what? Do quarks always travel at relativistic speeds? No. Do gluons (with their 0 mass) always travel at relativistic speeds? Yes (something you already said). Again, so what? So quarks can be formed under circumstantial processes, again, so what? What does this have to do with the mass of nucleons being almost entirely comprised of the relativistic mass of its quarks? Nothing. It's just another example of the nonsense you bring into things just to blind sight people into thinking your right. How pathetic can you be. You're a perfect example of what Einstein said.

"There are two things that are infinite. The universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the universe."

Even if a gluon's momentum were to get transferred to a quark (which would either require the gluon to be absorbed by the quark or decrease in velocity), it still doesn't change that the mass of a nucleon is because of the relativistic speeds of the quarks it is comprised of.

http://www.npl.washington.edu/AV/altvw80.html

QUOTE (->
 QUOTE Where did I say that?

Your the one that brought the gluon's momentum into a discussion involving mass. I'm simply saying "so what". They have momentum, what's your point. The quarks have momentum too. Again, so what? Do quarks always travel at relativistic speeds? No. Do gluons (with their 0 mass) always travel at relativistic speeds? Yes (something you already said). Again, so what? So quarks can be formed under circumstantial processes, again, so what? What does this have to do with the mass of nucleons being almost entirely comprised of the relativistic mass of its quarks? Nothing. It's just another example of the nonsense you bring into things just to blind sight people into thinking your right. How pathetic can you be. You're a perfect example of what Einstein said.

"There are two things that are infinite. The universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the universe."

Even if a gluon's momentum were to get transferred to a quark (which would either require the gluon to be absorbed by the quark or decrease in velocity), it still doesn't change that the mass of a nucleon is because of the relativistic speeds of the quarks it is comprised of.

http://www.npl.washington.edu/AV/altvw80.html

A composite particle may be either lighter or heavier than the sum of its components at rest. A nucleus (size about 10^-13 m) is slightly lighter than the neutrons and protons from which it is made due to the strong- force binding energy that holds the nucleus together. It "costs" about 8 MeV of energy to pull each neutron or proton loose from its nuclear binding, so an assembled nucleus has about 1% less mass-energy than its disassembled components.

On the other hand, the proton (size about 10^-15 m) is much heavier than the combined masses of its three components (two up quarks and one down quark). The proton's mass in energy units is 938 MeV, while the up quark has a mass of only about 4 MeV and the down quark about 7 MeV. The majority of the proton's mass comes from the kinetic energy of its quark components. Within a proton the quarks are confined to a "box" only 10^-15 m across. Heisenberg's uncertainty principle dictates that the product of uncertainties in position and momentum must be greater than h-bar, so a quark localized to 10^-15 m must have a momentum uncertainty of at least 197 MeV in energy units. The energy contributions from three quarks having about this momentum in each of three space directions approximately equals the proton mass. The proton thus derives its net mass energy mainly from the internal motions of its constituent quarks, not from their rest masses.
AlphaNumeric
QUOTE (Precursor562+Jun 25 2008, 05:15 PM)
Your the one that brought the gluon's momentum into a discussion involving mass. I'm simply saying "so what". They have momentum, what's your point.

So now you're changing your tune from "They don't have momentum" to "Who cares?". Nice turn around.

And my point is that if they can take the momentum of quarks, they must take the energy which gives them all that relativistic mass. If a quark emits a gluon and thus slows from 0.999c to 0, where's the energy gone? To the gluon. Can you tell this has occured outside the nucleon? Nope. The mass of the nucleon is unchanged. But the mass is due to the gluon now.
QUOTE (Precursor562+Jun 25 2008, 05:15 PM)
Do quarks always travel at relativistic speeds? No.
Errr... the whole of your claim is that the mass of the proton is due to the relativistic motion of the quarks. So if the quarks aren't moving relativistic, what is the cause of all the proton's mass? Or does it fluctuate?
QUOTE (Precursor562+Jun 25 2008, 05:15 PM)
How pathetic can you be.
I could contradict myself within 3 sentences as you just did.
QUOTE (Precursor562+Jun 25 2008, 05:15 PM)
Even if a gluon's momentum were to get transferred to a quark (which would either require the gluon to be absorbed by the quark or decrease in velocity), it still doesn't change that the mass of a nucleon is because of the relativistic speeds of the quarks it is comprised of..
So a gluon can take the momentum of a quark down to zero but the quark is still relativistic?
QUOTE (Precursor562+Jun 25 2008, 05:15 PM)
http://www.npl.washington.edu/AV/altvw80.html
I suppose you just tuned out of my post part of the way through and didn't see my comment that you're quoting an unsupported theory which has no experimental evidence and which only appeared in print in a science fiction magazine.

Or maybe you read that and you didn't want to accept it.

So let's see :

1. You changed from claiming the gluon has no momentum to trying to ignore it
2. You contradicted yourself about the motion of quarks in a single paragraph
3. You ignored the fact you're quoting an unsupported theory which has no experimental evidence and which only appeared in print in a science fiction magazine.

Would you care to address these points? Oh and you ignored my question about still thinking I'm a faker. Do you not want to address that?

Come on, let's see you dig yourself in deeper...
AlphaNumeric
http://www.npl.washington.edu/AV/av_index.html#11

Precursor562
QUOTE
"They don't have momentum"

I never said they didn't have momentum. Another example of not comprehending.

QUOTE (->
 QUOTE "They don't have momentum"

I never said they didn't have momentum. Another example of not comprehending.

And my point is that if they can take the momentum of quarks, they must take the energy which gives them all that relativistic mass.

IF they can take the momentum of quarks then the quarks will lose some of their relativistic mass and the nucleon will then lose some of its mass. Also I'm not convinced that the absorption/emitting of gluons actually changes the momentum of quarks. I would need a reference.

QUOTE
http://www.npl.washington.edu/AV/av_index.html#11

What doesn't work is the info pertaining to the quark substructure. It doesn't make the statement I took from it any less true. Also...

QUOTE (->
 QUOTE http://www.npl.washington.edu/AV/av_index.html#11

What doesn't work is the info pertaining to the quark substructure. It doesn't make the statement I took from it any less true. Also...

Heisenberg's uncertainty principle dictates that the product of uncertainties in position and momentum must be greater than h-bar, so a quark localized to 10-15 m must have a momentum uncertainty of at least 197 MeV in energy units. The energy contributions from three quarks having about this momentum in each of three space directions approximately equals the proton mass. The proton thus derives its net mass energy mainly from the internal motions of its constituent quarks, not from their rest masses.

Where the greater the momentum, the greater the velocity and so the greater the relativistic mass. This is not something the author made up. Unless the author is Werner Heisenberg

QUOTE
Analog Science Fiction & Fact Magazine;

The fiction; the author's info on the structure of the quark.
The fact; the author's statements on the mass of the nucleons which is based on tested and proven theories.

Talk about an act of desperation, trying to debunk valid info simply because in is involved in incorrect info.

QUOTE (->
 QUOTE Analog Science Fiction & Fact Magazine;

The fiction; the author's info on the structure of the quark.
The fact; the author's statements on the mass of the nucleons which is based on tested and proven theories.

Talk about an act of desperation, trying to debunk valid info simply because in is involved in incorrect info.

If a quark emits a gluon and thus slows from 0.999c to 0, where's the energy gone? To the gluon. Can you tell this has occurred outside the nucleon? Nope. The mass of the nucleon is unchanged. But the mass is due to the gluon now.

That's like saying an electron can be stopped (resulting in a rest mass) by emitting a single photon...

With one exception. The electron does speed up and slow down (gain/lose momentum) with the absorption and emitting of photons. It is something that has been proven (pretty sure observed as well) and can be easily referenced. I can't say the same for the transferring of momentum between quarks and gluons.

However, how about you bring in what the energy of a gluon and/or it's momentum. See how much of a change in the relativistic mass of the quark it will make.
AlphaNumeric
QUOTE (Precursor562+Jun 26 2008, 03:30 AM)
I never said they didn't have momentum.  Another example of not comprehending.

You said
QUOTE (Precursor562+Jun 24 2008, 04:17 PM)
There is also no transferring of momentum from gluons to quarks and vise versa
The only way a gluon could be emitted and no change in the quark's momentum occurs if is the gluon had no momentum.

Otherwise conservation of momentum is violated. That's pretty straight forward. And yet you claim I'm the one not comprehending.
QUOTE (Precursor562+Jun 26 2008, 03:30 AM)
IF they can take the momentum of quarks then the quarks will lose some of their relativistic mass and the nucleon will then lose some of its mass. Also I'm not convinced that the absorption/emitting of gluons actually changes the momentum of quarks. I would need a reference.
Explain how a quark can emit a gluon, which has momentum, and not alter it's own momentum and yet obey the conservation of momentum.

And your comment is flawed. Let's see :

Conservation of momentum exists. Gluons and quarks have momentum. A quark's high velocity is responsible, initially, for the high proton mass. The quark emits a gluon and slows down, otherwise conservation of momentum is violated. Since the proton mass is stable, the slowed quark and the high energy/momentum gluon are still giving the same contribution.

Nothing in that is hard to see. But the end result is that the gluon's energy and momentum are still contributing to the mass of the system. And if you want a reference for the gluon having momentum and energy, I suggest opening just about any book on QCD. Peskin & Schroder do considerable work on it in chapter 17 and beyond.
QUOTE (Precursor562+Jun 26 2008, 03:30 AM)
What doesn't work is the info pertaining to the quark substructure. It doesn't make the statement I took from it any less true. Also...
Then you should have no trouble finding those comments in a published paper in a reputable journal.
QUOTE (Precursor562+Jun 26 2008, 03:30 AM)
Talk about an act of desperation, trying to debunk valid info simply because in is involved in incorrect info.
If it's valid you should have no trouble finding it published in a reputable journal.

And it's funny you say such things to me when you ask me for references the gluon has momentum. Anyone who has ever done any calculations in QCD knows how to show that it does. My work specifically demonstrates that gluons are formed by particle annihilation and then carry all the momentum of the system.

There's another detailed calculation in Peskin of how quark+antiquark -> gluon -> quark+antiquark. If a quark and an anti quark annihilate into a gluon, where does their energy and momentum go? Into the gluon. So gluons can carry momentum and energy. They must do, since they are the way quarks normally interact.
QUOTE (Precursor562+Jun 26 2008, 03:30 AM)
That's like saying an electron can be stopped (resulting in a rest mass) by emitting a single photon...
It can. Can you tell me the upper limit for photon energy then?
QUOTE (Precursor562+Jun 26 2008, 03:30 AM)
With one exception. The electron does speed up and slow down (gain/lose momentum) with the absorption and emitting of photons. It is something that has been proven (pretty sure observed as well) and can be easily referenced. I can't say the same for the transferring of momentum between quarks and gluons.
Errr... it is easily referenced. It's in all the books on QCD. It's in things I've already linked to, both references and my own work.

Tell me, have you ever done QCD calculations? Come on, be honest. Because if you had, you'd know the equations of the photon and the gluon are completely analogous.

Production of Higgs in the LHC via gluons :

Gluon-gluon scatterings :

Gluon jets :

Gluon momenta :
http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v44/i5/p304_1
QUOTE (Precursor562+Jun 26 2008, 03:30 AM)
However, how about you bring in what the energy of a gluon and/or it's momentum. See how much of a change in the relativistic mass of the quark it will make.

1. This is stuff you should already know if you know any QCD. Do you?
2. I've already linked to my work which derived gluon dynamics and calculates things from it
3. I've already discussed the 4-momentum for a gluon in this post.
4. The links I've provided cover such things. If you knew about QCD you'd know how to find such information.

For instance, the main mechanism of Higgs production at the LHC are things like gluon-gluon scattering. The gluons can carry enough momentum to product a particle with a rest mass of at least 110GeV.

And the rest mass of a proton is 1GeV. Sounds like the gluons have the ability to carry enough energy to deal with the proton.

And Precursor, why do you continue to ignore my question about wether you still think I'm a faker. Are you so unable to say "I was wrong" that you can't admit I'm not? Mind you, we've seen you're a compulsive liar when you claimed to know quantum field theory. Now you're in a thread digging yourself in deeper by complaining about gluons not being able to change the momentum of quarks (then how do they bind them?). I've proven I can do QCD. If I give you a question to do, will you do it?

If you ignore this question I'll have to just take it to mean you are unwilling to admit you're wrong and you're unable to do QCD. After all, I've given you multiple opportunities to say "Turns out you're not a faker" and you ignore them all.

Must be hard to swallow your pride when you invest so much time in lying about yourself.
DavidD
I have textbook of about ~1970 year and in it is writen only 3 quarks and there is claims, that with it combinations possible to explain all (prety much) hardrons mesons resonans and over. Now invented 3 more quarks (and don't know precisly they mass). Is it becouse new particles was discovered? Or becouse need more data to explain some efects? I think that with any over combination of particles and properites possible to explain atoms. For example neutron nosist of 3 stupidons and two of them have charge +/- and 1 zero charge. Proton consist of two stupidons of zero charge and 1 stupidon of + charge. Why not?
AlphaNumeric
In 1970s we were still discovering quarks and their bound states. The Standard Model wasn't really brought into it's full state until the 80s and even then we didn't get confirmation of predictions like the existence of the top quark until later. In 1970 we were still very unsure about the internal make up of the nucleus. We didn't discover the W and Zs until quite a bit of time after that.
QUOTE
I think that with any over combination of particles and properites possible to explain atoms.
Then provide a better model. You haven't managed to even understand electrons going around atoms yet and they are 'easy'.
DavidD
Why the best model must be of smallest number of particles? Is it criterion of true? I can for example to say, that each particle consist of itself but have such properties which we see when he interacts with over particles or decaying.
Why my model then is wrong and quarks is right? Only becouse quarks have smaller number of properties like colours? IS it citerion of true? I don't think so. I think there posible to explain W, Z bosons with any over (maybe with more colours...) model of subanalogquarks particles like stupidons. Why not?
Precursor562
QUOTE
The only way a gluon could be emitted and no change in the quark's momentum occurs if is the gluon had no momentum.

Then please reference (other than "your work") where it states such a change occurs. Also, does the mass of nucleons fluctuates or are they pretty much absolute values?
finally, how much momentum or energy does a gluon have?

QUOTE (->
 QUOTE The only way a gluon could be emitted and no change in the quark's momentum occurs if is the gluon had no momentum.

Then please reference (other than "your work") where it states such a change occurs. Also, does the mass of nucleons fluctuates or are they pretty much absolute values?
finally, how much momentum or energy does a gluon have?

For instance, the main mechanism of Higgs production at the LHC are things like gluon-gluon scattering.

Did you even read the pdf? Another example of bringing in the irrelevant.

AlphaNumeric
QUOTE (Precursor562+Jun 26 2008, 11:24 PM)
Then please reference (other than "your work") where it states such a change occurs.

If quarks are held together by gluons, how can they do this if the gluons cannot alter the momentum of the quarks? If the momentum of the quarks cannot be changed by gluons, the quarks would just move in straight lines, other than photon interactions, and just fly apart.

If the gluons cannot alter the motion of quarks, what is the point of the strong FORCE? You do know that 'force' involves a change of momentum, right?
QUOTE (Precursor562+Jun 26 2008, 11:24 PM)
Also, does the mass of nucleons fluctuates or are they pretty much absolute values?
They appear to be constant, to within a very small margin of error.
QUOTE (Precursor562+Jun 26 2008, 11:24 PM)
finally, how much momentum or energy does a gluon have?
It's not set in stone. It's like saying "What's the energy of a photon", as if photons only have 1 energy. Gluons can have a slew of different energies.

Obviously you are deliberately not looking online or you have and you don't want to admit that a search for 'gluon momentum' brings up loads of things. Things like this which talks about gluon momentum distributions.

So what is it, are you being deliberately ignorant or are you just deliberately lying?
QUOTE (Precursor562+Jun 26 2008, 11:24 PM)
Did you even read the pdf? Another example of bringing in the irrelevant.
Did you bother to read the slew of sources I linked to? All of which talk about gluons interacting and producting other particles, gluon energy, gluon scattering, gluon momentum.

Funny how you don't provide any such links. I asked you to find me a source which backs you up which isn't from a science fiction magazine, which should be easy enough if you are right about your claims, and you cannot.

And I did provide you with things to look at other than my work. Or are you too lazy to bother opening a book? Peskin and Schroder is a hugely popular book on QFT. It'd teach you how to actually comput things.

And why do you keep ignoring my questions about wether you can do QCD yourself? Why do you keep ignoring my questions about wether I'm 'a faker' or not?

I have to highlight it in red or you do what StevenA does, just ignore questions you don't want to admit being wrong on.
Precursor562
QUOTE
If the momentum of the quarks cannot be changed by gluons, the quarks would just move in straight lines, other than photon interactions, and just fly apart.

The quark doesn't need to change its momentum to keep from moving in a straight line. Does the Earth travel in a straight line? Does it have momentum?

QUOTE (->
 QUOTE If the momentum of the quarks cannot be changed by gluons, the quarks would just move in straight lines, other than photon interactions, and just fly apart.

The quark doesn't need to change its momentum to keep from moving in a straight line. Does the Earth travel in a straight line? Does it have momentum?

They appear to be constant, to within a very small margin of error.

Ok so it is constant (with there being exceptional circumstances of course).

QUOTE
It's not set in stone. It's like saying "What's the energy of a photon", as if photons only have 1 energy. Gluons can have a slew of different energies.

Yes but even with light, there is a range. With the speed constant, the momentum is depended on the energy where the energy is depended on wave length.

QUOTE (->
 QUOTE It's not set in stone. It's like saying "What's the energy of a photon", as if photons only have 1 energy. Gluons can have a slew of different energies.

Yes but even with light, there is a range. With the speed constant, the momentum is depended on the energy where the energy is depended on wave length.

All of which talk about gluons interacting and producting other particles, gluon energy, gluon scattering, gluon momentum.

Did any say the gluons have mass? Did any say that they contribute to the mass of nucleons?

So give me a range to work with. Give me an average, surely there is an energy that the gluons are more commonly at. Numbers, give me numbers. Then we'll see just how much of a momentum change can occur to a quark.
AlphaNumeric
QUOTE (Precursor562+Jun 27 2008, 11:41 AM)
The quark doesn't need to change its momentum to keep from moving in a straight line.  Does the Earth travel in a straight line?  Does it have momentum

Swing and a miss.

Read what I said again. The quarks are bound. They are bound by gluons. If the gluons cannot alter the momentum of the quarks the quarks would just move in straight lines. But they don't. What keeps them bound? Momentum transfer from gluons.

Let's use your Earth example. The Earth goes in an elliptical orbit. What keeps it elliptical? Momentum transfer between it and the Sun via gravity. If there was no momentum transfer, the Earth would not be bound in an orbit and would go in a straight line.

So if quarks don't go in a straight line, they must be transfering momentum between one another. How? The strong force. What carries the strong force? Gluons.
QUOTE (Precursor562+Jun 27 2008, 11:41 AM)
Yes but even with light, there is a range. With the speed constant, the momentum is depended on the energy where the energy is depended on wave length.
How does that imply there's a range? p = h/lambda. E = pc = hf where f is the frequency. That doesn't imply there's a range for f.

Are you struggling to grasp even the most basic of quantum theory?
QUOTE (Precursor562+Jun 27 2008, 11:41 AM)
Did any say the gluons have mass?
They don't say rest mass. Because they don't have rest mass alone. But it's their bound composite states which do.

Is there something you aren't understanding about glueballs? They are the result of our QCD models. So if our model can give rest mass to just a ball of gluons, don't you think it can give rest mass of a ball of gluons and quarks over and above the mass of the quarks?
QUOTE (Precursor562+Jun 27 2008, 11:41 AM)
So give me a range to work with. Give me an average, surely there is an energy that the gluons are more commonly at. Numbers, give me numbers. Then we'll see just how much of a momentum change can occur to a quark.
What's the matter, don't you know any QCD? If you don't know how to model the gluons yourself, why are you being so vocal about this stuff?

I've just explained, and you should have known, that there's no 'range'. Experimental observations and model predictions allow for two gluons to create a top quark or a Higgs, which have rest masses AT LEAST 110GeV. That's more than 100 times the mass of a proton and about 30,000 times the mass of an up quark.

Didn't you understand the links I provided?

And why did you ignore my highlighted questions in my previous post? Are you afraid to admit you're wrong and you don't know any QCD?

Come now Precursor. You once claimed you know more QFT than me, so why am I constantly kicking your arse up and down every thread you open your mouth in about QFT? I've proven I do what I said I do. I've proven I can do some QCD. I've proven I'm more than just copy and pasting from websites. Why can't you step up and show you're more than just furiously Googling?

Got something to hide?
DavidD
Quark scatering theory is wrong and it's dont proing nothing, becouse electron scatering in proton is actauly scatering electron around proton! And why electron scatering through pproton instead neutron? Becouse neutron harder to detect? So electron scatering in proton don't prvoing nothing, becouse heinsberger uncertainty principle can even don't exist nad thus electron at higher energies have the same size... Heizenber UP imposible to prove!
AlphaNumeric
QUOTE (DavidD+Jun 27 2008, 04:10 PM)
becouse electron scatering in proton is actauly scatering electron around proton!

No, that's not true. Protons which have electrons going around them are called 'Hydrogen'. 'A proton' doesn't have electrons going around it.

Besides, the energies are so high in deep inelastic scattering that the probe electrons would blast right through the outer electron shells.
QUOTE (DavidD+Jun 27 2008, 04:10 PM)
And why electron scatering through pproton instead neutron? Becouse neutron harder to detect!
The neutron does have electrons scatter off it.
DavidD
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+Jun 28 2008, 06:44 PM)
No, that's not true. Protons which have electrons going around them are called 'Hydrogen'. 'A proton' doesn't have electrons going around it.

I was talking not about this... I was talking, that there is oficial two experiments, one of whose is electron scatering very closely to proton (touching it...) and over experiments is what electron flying (scatering) inside proton 'around' quarks... So in my perspective this is imposible to prove does in both experiments electron flying near proton (scatering closly to proton) or not.
QUOTE
Besides, the energies are so high in deep inelastic scattering that the probe electrons would blast right through the outer electron shells.

You seems talking about scatering in hydronen nuclear... well, there no diference... So I claiming that there imposible or very hardly and doubtly to prove, that electron GO Through PROTON, instad electron just go closely around proton (not in rotaiting sense). So this claim claims, that quarks wasn't even indirectly proved, they existance. 1. we don't know electron size. 2. we don't know proton size. 3. So we don't know how electron must scater through or by touching proton or somthing. Heisenberg uncertainty principle can be veriefed only for photons and spins and nothing to do with particles itself... Thus there imposible to precisly know position of proton due to noise and unprecision of aparatus and also imposible to precisly shoot electron into proton that it go through proton. Thus there questions is more than answers. And electron going through protons and "scatering over quarks" can't be proven in principle. Electron always scatering over proton and not nside proton and proton charge and maybe spin doing scatering efect,w hcih due to mentioned measurment uncertainties can't be know by angel or anergy loosing of electron to determine does electron scater over quarks or over proton.
It would be too good if quarks existation would be somehow proven...
AlphaNumeric
http://mediaplayer.group.cam.ac.uk/compone...ateos/Itemid,69

The 49th minute he describes how string theory, via the AdS/CFT correspondence, predicts/explains the mass gap seen in quark bound states. Specifically , when he writes M_gap = M_q / sqrt(lambda). The mass of the smallest bound state of quarks is considerably heavier than the quarks themselves. He actually says "The binding energy is very very large".

But what would he know? It's not like he's giving a lecture to Cambridge postgradutes and professors on how string theory is used to model QCD or anything.

Oh wait, he is!

Check and mate.
DavidD
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+Jun 29 2008, 03:12 PM)
http://mediaplayer.group.cam.ac.uk/compone...ateos/Itemid,69

The 49th minute he describes how string theory, via the AdS/CFT correspondence, predicts/explains the mass gap seen in quark bound states. Specifically , when he writes M_gap = M_q / sqrt(lambda). The mass of the smallest bound state of quarks is considerably heavier than the quarks themselves. He actually says "The binding energy is very very large".

But what would he know? It's not like he's giving a lecture to Cambridge postgradutes and professors on how string theory is used to model QCD or anything.

Oh wait, he is!

Check and mate.

Whom you saying it?

quark model with certinty of 2.5% explaining devision of neutron magnetic mmoment by proton magnetic moment: p_p/p_n=- 2/3~-0.667 and experimental it is p_p/p_n=-1.91/+2.79=-0.685. Thus quarks model can't explain precisly much... So quarks model fit in some experimental data prety well but have gaps, which can be filled only with magic.
Precursor562
QUOTE
Let's use your Earth example. The Earth goes in an elliptical orbit. What keeps it elliptical? Momentum transfer between it and the Sun via gravity. If there was no momentum transfer, the Earth would not be bound in an orbit and would go in a straight line.

Provided the Earth maintains a constant speed and mass as it orbits the sun, it will have a constant momentum. p = mv.

For the Earth...

m = 5.9742e24 kg
v = 29,800 m/s

p = 5.9742e24 * 29, 800
p = 1.7803116e29

So you're telling me that the momentum fluctuates. Does this "momentum transfer via gravity" cause the Earth's mass to fluctuate up and down? Or the Earth's velocity?

Oh and the only way for a particle to have a relativistic mass is if it has a rest mass.

m_r = m_0/(1-v^2/c^2)^2

If m_0 = 0 then m_r = 0 for any v.

So the gluons do not have rest mass, they do not have relativistic mass. They transfer momentum from quark to quark within a nucleon resulting in a net change of practically nothing. This allows for an accurate calculation of the nucleon's mass as there doesn't exist a noticeable change in the net relativistic mass of the comprising quarks. In order for gluon to contribute to the mass of the nucleon at any time it must (at any time) have a non zero mass (relativistic or otherwise).

Such is simple. Matter has mass because molecules have mass because atoms have mass because electrons and nucleons have mass.

Electrons are elementary particles so that chain stops there.
Nucleons are not and so nucleons have mass because quarks have mass. Quarks are still believed to be elementary particles and so the chain stops there.

I left out z and w bosons but it's better to keep it simple.
Euler
QUOTE (Precursor562+Jul 2 2008, 04:36 AM)
Provided the Earth maintains a constant speed and mass as it orbits the sun, it will have a constant momentum.  p = mv.

So you're telling me that the momentum fluctuates.  Does this "momentum transfer via gravity" cause the Earth's mass to fluctuate up and down?  Or the Earth's velocity?

How utterly stupid are you? Momentum is a vector: the direction of motion is constantly changing for a body in orbit.

For the love of God: I know 10yr olds who understand this stuff!!!
Euler
Can I add: don't let this put you off posting more in this thread. Seeing AlphaNumeric make a fool of you is thoroughly entertaining.

Internet physics rocks!!!
prometheus
QUOTE (Precursor562+Jul 2 2008, 04:36 AM)
m_r = m_0/(1-v^2/c^2)^2

I'm going to ignore the conceptual difficulties with relativistic mass and stare straight ahead:
QUOTE (Precursor562+Jul 2 2008, 04:36 AM)
If m_0 = 0 then m_r = 0 for any v.

What if v = c? then m_r = 0/0 != 0

AlphaNumeric
Precursor, do you know the difference between speed and velocity?

Also, do you know the fact the Earth moves along an elliptical orbit, not a circular one?

Do you realise there's momentum transfer between stars and their planets? That's how we currently detect many of them, the huge planets make their stars 'wobble', which we can see.

And why do you continue to ignore all the slew of sources I provide, including the lecture at Cambridge where he says "binding energy is very very large" when talking about mesons (ie gluons and quarks)? And why can you not provide a proper source for your claims? And why do you continue to ignore my question about wether you still think I'm a faker or not?

It's almost as if you don't want to admit you're wrong.
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.