Can Technobabble Be Avoided in Discussions About Quark Technology?

[Quark Bombs]

Hi.

I was wondering whether Quark technology is possible or not? You know, Quark reactors, etc
?

 

[Bob S]

No. The quark lifetime is less than 10^-20 seconds.

 

[mathman]

Under normal conditions you can't get free quarks.

 

[vanesch]

When I was 9 years old, I "invented" a quark bomb. It was supposed to blow up a whole planet. It didn't work (I think). the principle was to mix a bottle of up quarks with a bottle of down quarks, the bottles were made of a special kind of glass and I elaborated a system with two hammers and a spring which broke them upon impact.
The trick was to break the bottles simultaneously.

Later, when I was much older, I learned real physics.

 

[Quark Bombs]

No. The quark lifetime is less than 10^-20 seconds.

hello again.

ok so we take these protons.. use them as fuel for the quark reactor.

Under normal conditions you can't get free quarks.

hello again.

well we make such conditions where we can free these quarks and use them as fuel for the quark reactor.

its not that hard you know.

 

[cam875]

hello again.

ok so we take these protons.. use them as fuel for the quark reactor.




hello again.

well we make such conditions where we can free these quarks and use them as fuel for the quark reactor.

its not that hard you know.

hmmm... lol what do you mean its not that hard? you were just told it has improved impossible so far and that's with some of the smartest people in the world working on it.

 

[Quark Bombs]

hmmm... lol what do you mean its not that hard? you were just told it has improved impossible so far and that's with some of the smartest people in the world working on it.

Yeah well in the end its very easy.

http://www.aip.org/png/images/quark-spin-png.jpg


How hard is that?

i mean, we can use these quarks and go in even more deeper. Use microscopes or whatever the technology we use nowadays to observe them, then use them.

 

[Astronuc]

Yeah well in the end its very easy.

How hard is that?

i mean, we can use these quarks and go in even more deeper. Use microscopes or whatever the technology we use nowadays to observe them, then use them.

Um no. Those are pictures of simplistic concepts, and have little bearing on the reality of the physics. I would recommend one stop fantasizing and actually learn the physics of the subatomic realm.

 

[whybother]

... is this a joke? Showing cartoon pictures of something doesn't equal a theory for how something works...

There are no free quarks. Period. I also don't know of any plausible modifications to QCD that even allow them to exist theoretically.

Not that you'd necessarily need free quarks for some sort of quark technology, but then you may as well not call it that, I guess.

 

[russ_watters]

Im not sure why this thread hasn't been closed yet. Quarkbombs, please reread vanesch's post and then read the wiki on technobabble: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technobabble

What you are doing is nothing more than technobabbling: throwing together a bunch of scientific words without any consideration for what those words actually mean when put together in a sentence. This is is a science forum, not a verbal vomit forum. Please do not post any more such nonsense.

Now it is closed.