Recent content by Zeynel

Great, thanks. I didn’t know that. So how do we compute these resonances? And is there a simple equation giving the motion of an ideal cyclone? Is this covered in fluid dynamics?

There’s an obvious resemblance between a spiral galaxy and a cyclone. They have the same spiral shape. I was wondering if the equations describing both motion are the same. I googled vortex motion but equations and concepts looked very specialized and complex for me to understand easily. Thanks.

I found a picture showing gluons as springs. Do gluons obey Hook's law?

I found this video that shows the gluons too (also as spheres). There were some comments here that the CERN video was "visual candy" and should not be taking seriously, but the video I linked was more technical and very informative and I think it reflects the current understanding. So it's a...

I don’t understand this graphic. When you say “how might you represent the above particle” do you refer to the point particle at the center of the field or do you call the spherical field of charge a “particle”? Also “quarks are never directly observed or found in isolation”. So, the “point...

But I understand the physics associated with these names. This narrative in Wikipedia gives me enough information about quarks: And from this page I learn that "quarks are never directly observed or found in isolation." And from @BvU I learn that quarks From the above physics, I conclude...

From the responses here: And also from the fact that in the "Standard Model particles are replaced by quantum fields." Since quarks live in the Standard Model they must be fields not spherical particles. I also found this question in Physics Stack Exchange...

But the representation of quarks in the video are not schematic representations. They are realistic representations.

But I'm not objecting to a diagrammatic representation of real images as in your illustration. In the CERN video they are not representing quarks schematically but realistically. I think the correct analogy would be to replace the realistic image of the battery in your illustration, for...

I'm sorry but I think there's been a misunderstanding. I appreciate and thank everyone here who tried to help me understand with my question. What you quoted was aimed at CERN. And I also accept @DennisN's toned down letter and probably I will send that. It seems I took this issue more seriously...

Thanks for your replies and this suggestions. I indeed drafted a letter to CERN. May I ask you to take a look and make any suggestions. I don't want the letter to sound to harsh, what do you think? *** Hello, I'm writing about CERN's representation of quarks as spherical balls. As an example...

Ok. I understand. But I don't understand the steps to transform or substitutions to make to arrive to eV starting from 1/2 m vv.

You are right. I egree. This is true too. I agree, you are right. Let me say that my real concern is about multiple definitions of symbols in physics. I agree with @ZapperZ that physics deals with quantities and not with “strings”, so all symbols must ultimately point to quantities. Sorry...

Ok, thanks for this explanation. Let me write what I understood from it. Correct me if I’m wrong. “...English words that we used to describe things in physics.” So, 1. There are “things”. This is a given. 2. In order to refer to these things we need to name them. 3. As far as physics is...

So we know that there is a nucleus and this nucleus has parts. But we have no idea what these parts inside the nucleus look like. Did I understand correctly?