Quark composition of nucleons : dimensionality ?

[kleinwolf]

As a layperson, I read that nuclei components nucleons(n,p) are normally built up of three quarks. But does that number of particle not define only a plane (outside the radii of quarks themselves)...Are nucleon having only a surface (or a volume wiht 1 negligeable length) and not a volume ?
Hence, if it is known that SU(3) is the symmetry group of the color charge force, it is defining a 3 dimensional space, hence involving a dimension more than the one defined by the quarks seen as point particle.
Hence, isn't there a dimensional problem between the number of quarks and the dimensionality of the color force or the dimensionality of nuclear component ?

 

[marlon]

As a layperson, I read that nuclei components nucleons(n,p) are normally built up of three quarks. But does that number of particle not define only a plane (outside the radii of quarks themselves)...Are nucleon having only a surface (or a volume wiht 1 negligeable length) and not a volume ?

In the Dual Abelian Higgs model three quarks can sit together on the angles of a triangle or on the endpoints of the Y-sign. Each choice depends on energy scale. Now, the clue is that these charts are expressed in an energy base, NOT a coordinate base. Thus, these charts correspond to most stable energy configurations and NOT to spatial configurations. Besides, the HUP tells us that we cannot localize quarks.

Also apart from the three-quark configurations, you are forgetting about the virtual quark/anti-quarkpairs that pop up and disappear in between the quarks.

Hence, if it is known that SU(3) is the symmetry group of the color charge force, it is defining a 3 dimensional space,

These are NOT 3 spatial dimensions, but this denotes that you can write down the theory in terms of three base vectors : ie the colours

marlon

 

[Spin_Network]

As a layperson, I read that nuclei components nucleons(n,p) are normally built up of three quarks. But does that number of particle not define only a plane (outside the radii of quarks themselves)...Are nucleon having only a surface (or a volume wiht 1 negligeable length) and not a volume ?
Hence, if it is known that SU(3) is the symmetry group of the color charge force, it is defining a 3 dimensional space, hence involving a dimension more than the one defined by the quarks seen as point particle.
Hence, isn't there a dimensional problem between the number of quarks and the dimensionality of the color force or the dimensionality of nuclear component ?

Good question!

If one has a Proton, place it next to a Neutron, what determines the volume difference?..Neutron is slightly larger, by volume than the proton.

So what is the Quark configuration difference?,,does this contribute to the excess volume of the Neutron..could it be that the Quark charge's of the Proton, produce the best finite stable 'charge' product for atomic structures?

Why is there a Universe in which Protons are the fundamental base Particle for all of Positive Matter?

Finally, why is the Proton the best stable volume for Three-Dimensional space?

 

[kleinwolf]

But even if it is an energy space, giving 3 vectors defining the state of three particles, then obvioulsly the relative "energy-state" are linearly dependent, and hence defining a 2 dimensional subspace, whereas the vector space defined on each quark for the colour force is 3 dimensional, and hence not defined intrisically in the energy subspace defined by the 3 quarks themselves ??

 

[marlon]

But even if it is an energy space, giving 3 vectors defining the state of three particles, then obvioulsly the relative "energy-state" are linearly dependent, and hence defining a 2 dimensional subspace, whereas the vector space defined on each quark for the colour force is 3 dimensional, and hence not defined intrisically in the energy subspace defined by the 3 quarks themselves ??

I am sorry but i really do not understand one single word of what you state there. Could you please clarify what you mean ? What exactly is your problem with the energy space and what is a relative energy-state ?

regards
marlon