Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

B Question about quarks

  1. Mar 4, 2016 #1
    Hi. I'm wondering if anyone has any info on "quark seeding" like:
    Is it possible to dope the crystal lattice of a solid material by replacing electrons with quarks ?
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Mar 4, 2016 #2

    Orodruin

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member

  4. Mar 4, 2016 #3
    Is the mass of the antiquark negative ?
    Are the antiquark charges in the neutron 2, -1, -1 ?
     
  5. Mar 4, 2016 #4

    Orodruin

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member

    No, these questions appear to me as wild speculation only. Is ere a point to this?
     
  6. Mar 4, 2016 #5
    They shouldn't appear as wild speculation... they were written by Dr F Winterberg in 1975...but maybe quark knowledge was incorrect back then so his work incorrect by today's standards?
    Do you have a PhD or doctorate in this field?
     
  7. Mar 4, 2016 #6

    Orodruin

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member

    Do you really think nothing has happened in theoretical particle physics in 40 years? I suggest you pick up a modern textbook instead of reading outdated stuff.
     
  8. Mar 4, 2016 #7
    I would read physics manuals or even go to university and study physics if I could afford it... For the moment I can only ask a question on a forum and hope for an educated answer to satisfy my curiosity.

    Suppose the magnetic field between quarks is 10^17 gauss...a laser of 10^13 erg, 10^-9 second pulse and focused on an area of 10^-20 sqcm should be enough to achieve the fission of a proton, right?
    As in 10^42 erg / sqcm should overcome the 10^17 gauss field, right?
     
  9. Mar 4, 2016 #8

    Drakkith

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Most of your questions in this thread can be answered by reading the wikipedia article on quarks and visiting the other articles linked therein.
    Below are a few articles to get you started on the subject.


    No. Quarks are not held together through the EM force, but the color force (also known as the strong force). Also, I'm not sure fission is the right term for what would happen to the proton. But I'm also not sure what the right term is... :olduhh:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quark
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_confinement
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strong_interaction
     
  10. Mar 5, 2016 #9

    mfb

    User Avatar
    2016 Award

    Staff: Mentor

    Free quarks do not exist.
    To focus a laser to a picometer, you would need a gamma ray laser. Good luck building that. High-energetic gamma rays can react with protons independent of the energy, but classical physics does not give a proper description of that interaction, and the results are always hadrons, not free quarks.
     
  11. Mar 5, 2016 #10
    So by what means did a Dr. in 1970s manage to calculate the force between quarks in a neutron to be equal to 10^17 gauss?

    Anyway.. his paper suggests a few main ideas:
    1) breakdown of neutron to obtain quarks with such a powerful laser ( BTW can "erg" be converted into layman like watt or something?)
    2) he presumes the spacing of mass in an electric force field is determined by the Heisenberg uncertainty principle depending on the magnitude of the masses regardless if the masses are positive or negative. So a crystal's lattice spacing would be reduced when electrons are replaced with antiquark thanks to the greater, although negative, mass of the quark vs mass of the electron.

    He then gives the theoretical strength as:

    e^2/r^4

    where e is electron charge and r is Bohr radius which varies inversely with particle mass.
    So he says for a replacement of 0.3% of electrons with quarks, the lattice spacing should decrease by a factor of 10 and the strength increases by a factor of 10000.
    Also because melting point depends on e^2/r^4 then again a increase in melting point by a factor of 10000.

    3) the fission would release double the binding energy per unit mass of proton-antiproton annihilation as calculated with these equations:
    Legend: Eb( binding energy), mp(nucleon mass), 3|Maq|(mass of 3 antiquark)

    Eb=(Mp-3Maq)c^2

    because for antiquarks Maq=-|Maq|

    Eb=(Mp+3|Maq|)

    So the huge energy release(double that of matter annihilation) comes from

    Mp=3|Maq| , and Eb=2Mp c^2

    Have to mention that Dr. Winterberg's work appears to be based on the quark theory of matter from P.A.M. Dirac.

    Would really appreciate a sort of layman explanation on why this might or might not work.
     
    Last edited: Mar 5, 2016
  12. Mar 5, 2016 #11
    There is mention of a "hard X-ray" laser.
     
  13. Mar 5, 2016 #12

    mfb

    User Avatar
    2016 Award

    Staff: Mentor

    Gauß is not a unit of force.
    1970 is long ago. The gluon was not even experimentally observed back then.
    107 erg = 1 J
    That does not make sense at all.
    Antiquarks have positive masses, by the way.
    That does not make sense either.

    Forget what Winterberg wrote in 1970. I doubt it was reasonable physics back then, but it is certainly not reasonable today.
    It does not work, because there is no content that would remotely make sense.
     
  14. Mar 5, 2016 #13
    Right...ok.. thank you... By the way it was 10^17 erg not ^7.

    Edit: just one last question. Is there anything discovered so far that has negative mass?
    Edit2: last edit I promise: what are leptons made of, and what are quarks made of? And what's the size ratio of the two? Could there be something hiding inside either of them(sub-quarks particles and sub-lepton particles) ?
     
    Last edited: Mar 5, 2016
  15. Mar 5, 2016 #14

    phinds

    User Avatar
    Gold Member
    2016 Award

    quarks are elementary (aka fundamental) particles.
     
  16. Mar 5, 2016 #15

    mfb

    User Avatar
    2016 Award

    Staff: Mentor

    I posted the conversion factor, so you can convert whatever energy value you have.
    No.
    At least according to current knowledge, they are elementary particles, and do not have a size. It is possible that they are composite particles but that would require really weird physics to explain all the precision experiments that did not find any hint of an internal structure.
     
  17. Mar 5, 2016 #16
    So if 10^7= 1 Joule, then 10^17= 10000000 joules? An extra 10 zeroes? So watt=j/s, then 10mil joules/s ...1millionth of a second, 1 million joules.... 1 million watts... So that laser given in the example at the beginning would be a hard X-ray of 1 MW pulse for 1 nanosecond?

    edit: No wait ...10mil j/s and only 1 millionth of s...10 joules...10watts for 1 nanosecond... I'm lost.
     
  18. Mar 5, 2016 #17

    mfb

    User Avatar
    2016 Award

    Staff: Mentor

    10, not 7.
    1017 erg = 1010*107 erg = 1010 J = 10 GJ.
    Post 3 mentions 1013 erg in 10-9 s, that is 1013 erg / (10-9 s) = 1022 erg/s = 1015 J/s = 1015 W.
     
  19. Mar 5, 2016 #18
    Oh right... yes it was only 10¹³ for erg.. so you added the -9 to 13 at the powers and got 10²²... Cool.
    So that's 10^15 watts if the laser pulse is 1 second.. and if it's only 1ns pulse then the laser needs only be 10^9 Watts= 1bn Watts=1GW.
    edit: so hard xray 1 GW pulsed for 1 ns. Is that achievable with q switching? Nd:glass? Nd:yag? Or it requires free electron laser?
     
  20. Mar 5, 2016 #19

    mfb

    User Avatar
    2016 Award

    Staff: Mentor

    It is 1015 W (1PW) for 1 nanosecond. The energy is 106 J.

    Those numbers have nothing to do with proton-light interactions however. Those happen frequently at high-energetic particle accelerators, for example, with individual high-energetic photons of negligible intensity.
     
  21. Mar 5, 2016 #20
    Right... one last question... Might be a bit of a leap... is it possible that the Sun is actually a fission reactor at the core and a fusion reactor at the surface... so that the fusion is only a secondary recycling reaction only present at the surface but the main power comes from core fission?
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook




Similar Discussions: Question about quarks
  1. Quark question (Replies: 8)

  2. Quark Matter questions (Replies: 4)

Loading...