I What is a realistic image of quarks?

1,176
2,243
Ok. I understand. But I don't understand the steps to transform or substitutions to make to arrive to eV starting from 1/2 m vv.
(If we use the page I posted as a reference)

The work W done on the electron is W = qV, where q is charge and V is voltage.
Since the charge in this case is the electron charge, e, we put this into the equation and get W = eV.
The kinetic energy KE that the electron gains is KE = (mv2)/2.
The kinetic energy gained equals the work done, so KE = W, which means (mv2)/2 = eV.
 
1,176
2,243
Sorry, since this subject is not directly related to my original question maybe we can drop it and discuss it in another thread.
Let's drop it. :smile:
but the link you shared about units and dimensions used in physics made me realize that physics has an inherent limitation when “describing and understanding the physical world."
Yes, I can agree with that. But luckily, physics is not the only science branch; we've got chemistry for describing e.g. molecular behaviors and chemical reactions, we've got biology describing living things, and we've got e.g. materials science which may describe some things about billiard balls, just to name a few science branches.
I think it is more intellectually honest for CERN to admit that we do not know how quarks look like and put a disclaimer to that effect. Otherwise they are spreading misinformation and falsehoods to the public.
I can agree with you on that. Particularly since the video started with things that optically can be seen, and ended up with a visual representation* of the nucleon and quarks.

You could send CERN an email about it, and hear what they have to say (I'm not kidding). One of my friends once found an error on a NASA page, I don't remember what it was exactly, perhaps the speed of the International Space Station or something like that, and they corrected it and sent him a "thank you email" saying that the error had been on the page for a long time. :biggrin:

* Edit:
It may be worth noting that is was a very basic visual representation, and there are other things which were not shown in the picture, for instance that quarks exchange gluons with eachother, and quarks have fractional charges.
 
Last edited:

ZapperZ

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Education Advisor
Insights Author
2018 Award
34,661
3,594
Ok. I understand. But I don't understand the steps to transform or substitutions to make to arrive to eV starting from 1/2 m vv.
Wait, so this is all about you not understanding how to change units from one to the other??!!

Then back up a bit. Do you know the steps on how to change units from kilometer to, say, miles? If you do, then get closer. Do you know how to change units of energy from Joules to calories?

This is beginning to sound like a schoolwork-type question.

Zz.
 
43
2
You could send CERN an email about it,
Thanks for your replies and this suggestions. I indeed drafted a letter to CERN. May I ask you to take a look and make any suggestions. I don't want the letter to sound to harsh, what do you think?

***

Hello,

I'm writing about CERN's representation of quarks as spherical balls.

As an example check this page.

Here we see "two charm quarks and one up quark" represented as spherical balls.

I don't see any disclaimer on the image caption saying that "this is the product of an artist's imagination and that we have no observational evidence that quarks are spherical balls."

Please note that by representing quarks as spherical balls you are lying to the public and misleading the public.

There are two possibilities. 1. Either scientists at CERN do not know that quarks are not spherical balls, 2. Or, you know that quarks are not spherical balls but you are representing them as such to mislead the public in believing that you discovered a "particle" that looks like a spherical ball.

I am positive that scientists at CERN know that quarks are not spherical balls, then your goal must be to mislead the public.

May I ask why you are aiming to mislead the public?

CERN is also an educational institution and you have the responsibility to educate the public with correct scientific knowledge and not mislead them with faked images of quarks.

Please add a disclaimer to images of quarks you represented as spherical balls or remove them from your website. Please act promptly because this is a serious breach of trust.

The same image of quarks as spherical balls are repeated in this video.
 

A.T.

Science Advisor
9,345
1,376
There are two possibilities. 1. Either scientists at CERN do not know that quarks are not spherical balls, 2. Or, you know that quarks are not spherical balls but you are representing them as such to mislead the public in believing that you discovered a "particle" that looks like a spherical ball.
Or the most likely option 3: Scientists at CERN do know that quarks are not spherical balls, but are also used to abstracted representations and didn't think to put a disclaimer on every schematic graphic.
 

Vanadium 50

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Education Advisor
22,453
4,782
this is a serious breach of trust.
If this is going to be your reaction to anyone who tries to help you understand something but does not fully incorporate everything without a single simplification, I think the appropriate response is for everyone - including PF - to cease helping you altogether. That's probably not what you want.
 
Last edited:

BvU

Science Advisor
Homework Helper
11,703
2,537
There are two possibilities. 1. Either scientists at CERN do not know that quarks are not spherical balls, 2. Or, you know that quarks are not spherical balls but you are representing them as such to mislead the public in believing that you discovered a "particle" that looks like a spherical ball.

I am positive that scientists at CERN know that quarks are not spherical balls, then your goal must be to mislead the public.

May I ask why you are aiming to mislead the public?
You a law student ? :rolleyes:
 
1,176
2,243
Thanks for your replies and this suggestions. I indeed drafted a letter to CERN. May I ask you to take a look and make any suggestions. I don't want the letter to sound to harsh, what do you think?
I would not be so harsh if I were to write an email to CERN about this thing. I would write it as a friendly suggestion; when you just friendly suggest things to people, the likelihood of a getting a good result (or a result at all) is going up. I would write something like this:

"Hi! I noticed that in this video, which is a nice video about the scale of things, the video goes quite seamlessly from things that can be seen with our eyes to things that are not directly visible and ends up with a visual respresentation of the nucleon and quarks. This may mislead some people to think that the quarks inside a nucleon actually looks like how they are shown in the video. Maybe it would be a good idea to put in a small disclaimer about this at this point in the video, or at the end of it? Maybe something like "This is a visual representation."?
My regards,
(name)"
 
Last edited:
43
2
If this is going to be your reaction to anyone who tries to help you understand something but does not fully incorporate everything without a single simplification, I think the appropriate response is for everyone - including PF - to cease helping you altogether. That's probably not what you want.
I'm sorry but I think there's been a misunderstanding. I appreciate and thank everyone here who tried to help me understand with my question. What you quoted was aimed at CERN. And I also accept @DennisN's toned down letter and probably I will send that. It seems I took this issue more seriously than anyone else here and I apologize if I offended anybody. On the other hand I still think that an institution like CERN has the responsibility to publish scientifically accurate videos to the public.
 

BvU

Science Advisor
Homework Helper
11,703
2,537
You have your work cut out for you. All the institutions that carry atom images, thousands of text book writers, etc. etc. :rolleyes:
 
213
52
How do you know they aren't spherical balls ? Why aren't you enraged that protons are represented by red blobs and neutrons by white ?

Hey, don't get me wrong : you're not alone in wanting to understand a subject, without actually learning the math(s). (okay, maybe I'm projecting a bit)

I'd make the letter even milder than DennisN 's take,

Dear CERN,

Great video ; enjoyed the representation of electron orbitals (I understand they're replacing the archaic figures in schoolbooks), being a more realistic interpretation of what subatomic entities "look" like.

In that regard, I was wondering if the representation of nucleons - as being three spherical objects(quarks), inside an unidentified shell(gluons?) - is realistic in any manner.

Keep up the good work,

A.Fan
 
Last edited:

A.T.

Science Advisor
9,345
1,376
I still think that an institution like CERN has the responsibility to publish scientifically accurate videos to the public.
What does "scientifically accurate" mean here? Is a circuit diagram not "scientifically accurate" to you, because it doesn't look like the actual circuit?

slide_6.jpg
 

Attachments

43
2
What does "scientifically accurate" mean here? Is a circuit diagram not "scientifically accurate" to you, because it doesn't look like the actual circuit?

View attachment 239277
But I'm not objecting to a diagrammatic representation of real images as in your illustration. In the CERN video they are not representing quarks schematically but realistically. I think the correct analogy would be to replace the realistic image of the battery in your illustration, for instance, with a truck. That would be misrepresentation of a battery because a battery is not a truck. Similarly, a quark is not a spherical ball and it would be a misrepresentation to draw a quark as a spherical ball. That's all I'm saying.
 
43
2
Or the most likely option 3: Scientists at CERN do know that quarks are not spherical balls [and] didn't think to put a disclaimer on every schematic graphic.
But the representation of quarks in the video are not schematic representations. They are realistic representations.
 

BvU

Science Advisor
Homework Helper
11,703
2,537
You write to movie companies too ? "These droids are unrealistic ? " "Dragons don't behave like that ?"
 
43
2
How do you know they aren't spherical balls ?
From the responses here:

So by the time you are down another six orders of magnitude to the contents of the constituents of the nucleus it's really an appeal to your imagination
We don't need to know what things visually look like. We know the content of a nucleus, and the content of nucleons. We don't need to know what they visually look like, because this isn't always necessary.
3: Scientists at CERN do know that quarks are not spherical balls...
And also from the fact that in the "Standard Model particles are replaced by quantum fields." Since quarks live in the Standard Model they must be fields not spherical particles.

I also found this question in Physics Stack Exchange: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/161146/what-do-quarks-look-like Interestingly the answer includes this sentence:
"Please note that for clarity the standard model particles are shown as little balls, even though they are points at that level of magnification.
What I see as misrepresentation, they consider it clarity. So I think this is simply a matter of opinion.
 

BvU

Science Advisor
Homework Helper
11,703
2,537
And also from the fact that in the "Standard Model particles are replaced by quantum fields." Since quarks live in the Standard Model they must be fields not spherical particles.
Your logic is defective and your premise is wrong. I am sure there will be theoreticians objecting that what you call a fact is in fact not a fact at all, and that particles are disturbances of the field, not the field itself.

Whatever, visually representing either pretty quickly leads to drawing little balls :cool: -- as a kind of minimizing potential criticism (but in your case unsuccesfully).
 

A.T.

Science Advisor
9,345
1,376
But the representation of quarks in the video are not schematic representations. They are realistic representations.
What does "realistic representation" mean for quarks? Nobody has ever seen one for real, so any representation is implicitly schematic.
 

BvU

Science Advisor
Homework Helper
11,703
2,537
43
2
This still doesn't change the fact that you are hung up more on the names we give to these things than to understand the physics associated with those names.
But I understand the physics associated with these names. This narrative in Wikipedia gives me enough information about quarks:

Evidence for the existence of quarks comes from deep inelastic scattering: firing electrons at nuclei to determine the distribution of charge within nucleons .... If the charge is uniform, the electric field around the proton should be uniform and the electron should scatter elastically. Low-energy electrons do scatter in this way, but, above a particular energy, the protons deflect some electrons through large angles. The recoiling electron has much less energy and a jet of particles is emitted. This inelastic scattering suggests that the charge in the proton is not uniform but split among smaller charged particles: quarks.
And from this page I learn that "quarks are never directly observed or found in isolation."

And from @BvU I learn that quarks
...are disturbances of the field...
From the above physics, I conclude that quarks are not spherical balls. Then I ask, If quarks are not spherical balls, why is it that they are commonly drawn as spherical balls? Is that a bad question?
 

Want to reply to this thread?

"What is a realistic image of quarks?" You must log in or register to reply here.

Physics Forums Values

We Value Quality
• Topics based on mainstream science
• Proper English grammar and spelling
We Value Civility
• Positive and compassionate attitudes
• Patience while debating
We Value Productivity
• Disciplined to remain on-topic
• Recognition of own weaknesses
• Solo and co-op problem solving

Top Threads

Top