Reasons which give support for quark substructure of p and n

  • Thread starter Thread starter Poirot
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Quark Support
Poirot
Messages
87
Reaction score
2

Homework Statement


Give 2 reasons which give support for the quark substructure of protons and neutrons

Homework Equations

The Attempt at a Solution



My first reason was due to the fact that in deep elastic scattering of the electron from a proton, the analysis of the structure function (fourier transform) showed the charge distribution of the proton was not a dirac delta functon, and hence the proton has structure, further analysis found quarks were in fact point like and therefore fundamental.

I cannot think of another reason which is valid. I thought maybe something about how when you collide things at high energies quark antiquark pairs are created? but I don't think that right.
Any help would be fab thank you!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I don't know how to hint without just telling for a question like this but consider the phenomenology of inelastic scattering of nucleons...
also consider how quark model categorizes hadron spectra... that's not perfect as it assumes no better model than quarks without argument that no such better model exists but well it supports quark substructure *as a model* until something better comes along.
 
Thread 'Need help understanding this figure on energy levels'
This figure is from "Introduction to Quantum Mechanics" by Griffiths (3rd edition). It is available to download. It is from page 142. I am hoping the usual people on this site will give me a hand understanding what is going on in the figure. After the equation (4.50) it says "It is customary to introduce the principal quantum number, ##n##, which simply orders the allowed energies, starting with 1 for the ground state. (see the figure)" I still don't understand the figure :( Here is...
Thread 'Understanding how to "tack on" the time wiggle factor'
The last problem I posted on QM made it into advanced homework help, that is why I am putting it here. I am sorry for any hassle imposed on the moderators by myself. Part (a) is quite easy. We get $$\sigma_1 = 2\lambda, \mathbf{v}_1 = \begin{pmatrix} 0 \\ 0 \\ 1 \end{pmatrix} \sigma_2 = \lambda, \mathbf{v}_2 = \begin{pmatrix} 1/\sqrt{2} \\ 1/\sqrt{2} \\ 0 \end{pmatrix} \sigma_3 = -\lambda, \mathbf{v}_3 = \begin{pmatrix} 1/\sqrt{2} \\ -1/\sqrt{2} \\ 0 \end{pmatrix} $$ There are two ways...

Similar threads

Back
Top