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

Size of quarks

  1. Apr 20, 2004 #1
    When I use the following equation which assumes quarks are spheres of charge and compressing the spheres creates mass (by doing work):
    mass of quark = integral of ( k q ^2 / r^2 c^ 2 ) d r

    and input masses from the mass equation I arrived at by trial and error a few months ago in which n is an integer

    Mass = [12.50 x 10^3pi (n – 5) / 2 0] x ( n – 4 )^ 2 x 10^ 39 ( n – 3 ) / 2 x 10^57 x q ^n

    I get radius of up quark,charm quark and top quark to be around 10^-18,
    10^-19 and 10^-22 metres respectively.

    If I am right this means that the assumption of quantum field theory that charges are pointlike is incorrect.However the integral only allows me to obtain [ 1/r] between r1 and r2 where r1 is initial radius and r2 is compressed radius of a sphere.Can anyone think of a way to get r1 exact for a quark?
  2. jcsd
  3. Apr 20, 2004 #2
    By collision experiments, the sizes of particles were determined.

    Rutherford bombarded the gold atoms with alpha particles and deduced the existence of the nucleus.

    In high energy physics, the nuclei were bombarded by other elementary particles and the existence of quarks was established.

    In order to find the size of quarks, it has to be bombarded by something that must be smaller than the quarks. No such thing exist in nature. That is why quarks and the leptons are considered point particles.
  4. Apr 25, 2004 #3

    You have been transfered to theory development, where according to PF moderator chroot all the nutcases are dumped, a hearty welcome!
    Antonio is half right. Quantum physicist consider quarks to be pointlike, Particle physicist give them a minimum size based on planck length.
    I am intrigue by your claim because I have related quark mass to quark volume, but the volume and radii are in arbitrary numbers because I am unable to get a real quantity for any particular particle measurement other than mass.
    Would you please take a look at http://elasticity2.tripod.com/ and let me know if we can cooperate to produce something meaningfull.
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 25, 2004
  5. Apr 25, 2004 #4
    My research in the quantization of one dimensional space requires the existence of minimum quanta of length. I am not quite sure whether this minimum length is the same as the Planck length. But since I am using matrices instead of actual values for the length and forces, I don't need to specify the values for them.

    My postdiction is to calculate the mass ratio of a proton to an electron by these matrices and derive a value for the mass ratio to be within a percent of the actual experimental value. I can continue to find mass ratios for all the other particles but a strong evidence for stable particles of proton and electron is sufficient for me at this time.
  6. May 1, 2004 #5
    Lao, is there any specific evidence to say that they do not exist? I'm sure at some point in time there wasnt anything to show that quarks existed, either?
  7. May 1, 2004 #6
    Quarks and leptons in all practical purposes are point particles, their dimensional extension are zero. But their existence is due to their mutual interactions by their mass and charge properties and energy transformations.

    The interaction of the quantum of length that I have in mind is zero because the field is scalar that is to say that a force cannot be detected by experiment although the fluctuation of vacuum does indicate the existence of quantum of length. But if there is a quantum of length such as Planck length why does the force cannot be detected at this length?
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook