- #1
MTd2
Gold Member
- 2,028
- 25
I'm clueless.
As the distance between two quarks increases the potential energy in the bond between them grows without bound until hadronization occurs.What if there is not enough energy from the pair's center of mass to make hadronization happen?
In the reference frame I considered, that is, the quark's center of mass, the system feels no gravity because it is in free fall, and the kinetic energy of the quarks in relation to the center is smaller than it needs to happen hadronization.As the distance between two quarks increases the potential energy in the bond between them grows without bound until hadronization occurs.
I wasn't aware of that. Can you give me some nice references?cesiumfrog said:Seen the plentiful research on Yang-Mills black hole "hair" in anti-de Sitter space (for boundary conditions)? It seems "black holes do not have color charge" only in the sense that classical relativists normally neglect everything other than gravitational and electromagnetic fields; in fact the black hole can have infinite hair by adding that many quantum fields.
See for example: http://arxiv.org/abs/0708.2356In the reference frame I considered, that is, the quark's center of mass, the system feels no gravity because it is in free fall, and the kinetic energy of the quarks in relation to the center is smaller than it needs to happen hadronization.
I wasn't aware of that. Can you give me some nice references?
The strong force is short range compared to gravity. If it did have a color charge, you wouldn't be able to detect it, because you'd have to go within the event horizon to get anything measurable. So if you can't detect it either way, in my view, you can't proclaim that it's not there.Look in any standard text book on the subject and you will find a theorem in black hole physics called the "no hair" theorem. This theorem basically says that black holes have only three externally observable characteristics, mass M , surface charge Q, and angular momentum L.
yes you did, in post #3I did not say that! That quote is not mine!
No, I didn't. If you read #3, you will see that I am actualy quoting someone else from Tommaso Dorigo's blog!yes you did, in post #3