What are quarks made of?

Home Forums Science & tech What are quarks made of?

  • This topic has 92 replies, 1 voice, and was last updated 8 months ago by Anonymous.
Viewing 39 reply threads
  • Author
    Posts
    • #76074
      Anonymous
      Guest

      What are quarks made of?

    • #76075
      Anonymous
      Guest

      god
      how else could quarks infinitely produce themselves

      • #76076
        Anonymous
        Guest

        Quarks infinitely produce themselves!?

        • #76077
          Anonymous
          Guest

          if you try and split quarks the energy just goes into producing more quarks

          • #76078
            Anonymous
            Guest

            Do the quarks arrange themselves any particular order? Can the order be controlled?

          • #76132
            Anonymous
            Guest

            does the energy lessen and fade out eventually?

        • #76148
          Anonymous
          Guest

          if you try and split quarks the energy just goes into producing more quarks

          It’s not physically possible to separate two quarks. Nobody has ever observed an isolated quark by itself.

          When somebody tries to separate two quarks, two new quarks will form and bind to the two you separate to prevent the two that you separated from being alone . The energy of them separating is converted into new quarks.

          • #76155
            Anonymous
            Guest

            >Nobody has ever observed an isolated quark by itself.
            >What is bjorken scaling
            >What is the Callan Gross relation

          • #76161
            Anonymous
            Guest

            >When somebody tries to separate two quarks, two new quarks will form and bind to the two you separate to prevent the two that you separated from being alone . The energy of them separating is converted into new quarks.
            So they’re micro magnets?

      • #76120
        Anonymous
        Guest

        >how else could quarks infinitely produce themselves
        sis, stfu and pass the pipe

    • #76080
      Anonymous
      Guest

      They are not made of anything (unless string theory is correct or something)

      • #76082
        Anonymous
        Guest
        • #76083
          Anonymous
          Guest

          You don’t have to be made of anything to have a charge

        • #76084
          Anonymous
          Guest

          doesn’t matter who, because then we’ll just ask who created that creator, and then who created that creator who created the other creator, and so on

          • #76122
            Anonymous
            Guest

            those are all valid questions

        • #76103
          Anonymous
          Guest

          >Well, who did?
          Me.

    • #76081
      Anonymous
      Guest

      might as well ask who created the creator/creation of the universe/big bang/whatever

    • #76085
      Anonymous
      Guest

      The truth is, that question can never be satisfyingly answered. In reality, we have no criteria for ‘fundamentality’.

      Effective action is as predictive as a more ‘fundamental’ one. In fact, it can do a better job at it. We have no idea how to treat quarks non-perturbatively using analytic methods. We have to use lattice QCD. However, pions work as a very good approximation limited only by precision of an appropriate Yukawa coupling constant, whereas quarks at these scales are poorly understood.

      Now apply this logic to particles we today consider ‘fundamental’ and we run into problems. QCD may be fundamental, it can be effective theory in the limit of some more fundamental interaction, we simply don’t know unless we probe higher energy scales. Now is there any purpose of doing so if the effective action is just as good if not better than a more ‘fundamental’ one? It’s like trying to calculate the trajectory of an apple falling on Newton’s head using GR. Like sure, you’re applying a more fundamental theory, but why are you wasting your time doing it that way, idiot, use the effective Newtonian action!

      • #76088
        Anonymous
        Guest

        Woke af explainer

      • #76094
        Anonymous
        Guest

        "durr durr I don’t want to know whut’s going on i just want to… hrRNNGHGH>….. CALLLCULAAAAAATTTEEE and PREEDIIIICT"

        the driving impetus for science has always been curiosity about what actually makes the natural world tick– we are rapidly approaching if not already reached the limits of empirical observation to explain the fundamental nature of our reality.

        this is easily seen in the "correctness" of quantum mechanics, an abstract mathematical model that doesn’t give any definitive answer or intuition into what is ACTUALLY, in reality, going on at that scale with these entities that may or may not actually exist.

        there is a (stupid) point to be made about the nature of epistemic certainty: the modern scientist will probably say that if an abstract mathematical model can predict outcome, it’s just as good as the real thing. this is a scrotebrained idea.

        if you were confronted with a black box that gave you the double of a number you input, you could easily explain the black box as multiplying that number by two on the inside.

        but you would be equally "right", from the scientist’s point of view, if you had also said that the box duplicates the input and adds it to itself. both abstract models are supported by observations.

        but you wouldn’t actually know, nor would you have a non-scrotebrained claim to certainty unless you actually figured out how to open the black box and see what it does on the inside.

        the question is how do we do that NOW, now that we are apparently exhausting our empirical tools of understanding.

        • #76162
          Anonymous
          Guest

          >we are rapidly approaching if not already reached the limits of empirical observation to explain the fundamental nature of our reality.

          CERN antimatter gravity experiment remains

      • #76116
        Anonymous
        Guest

        It’s kind of obvious that our incomplete models that look at things at insufficient "zooming" need us to use perturbative techniques to compensate for the terms that probably come from a lot more complex dynamics that we have no idea how to describe analytically. Just like we can’t solve the true harmonic oscillator equation, but you can solve it perturbatively and get results to whatever precision you want (just like QFT).

        In a sense, I just wanted to say that there will never by a sufficiently good mathematical model that gives us all answers analytically, clean from the solution of the equations.
        It is true that for the harmonic oscillator example I gave we do know the full dynamics, it’s just that the equation is unsolvable. Also true that perturbation techniques are in a sense analytical. In the case of fundamental particles, if those string scrotes (or some other schizo cult) get a good model, I don’t think it will ever have equations that give us clean solutions, just some more accurate dynamics that require less effort in the perturbative "exploration" to get experimental figures.
        I’m probably not making any sense.

    • #76086
      Anonymous
      Guest

      how do we even know quarks exist?

    • #76087
      Anonymous
      Guest

      milk

    • #76090
      Anonymous
      Guest
    • #76091
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Sub quarks, which are in turn made up of sub sub quarks made up of sub sub sub quarks

    • #76092
      Anonymous
      Guest

      nothing. "particles" don’t actually exist, they are just an artifact of measuring things. Think of it like a DAC / ADC, we sample reality which is a smooth curve, but we are at the mercy of our sampling tool. the better the tool, the better our understanding of reality, but until we find a fundamentally different way to sample reality, we are always going to observe something ‘fake’ with data points and assumptions about what they represent. your favorite list of elementary particles are the latest refinement to the same old tool, more precies, looking more and more like that curve, but you still do not actually know what the curve truly looks like.

    • #76093
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Quarklets. It’s fields all the way down.

    • #76095
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Nothingness!!!! Like literally everything is!

      All somethings lead to questions and infinite regress. Nothingness co-exists and is the source of all things. It ends all questions.

    • #76096
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Pokemon!

    • #76097
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Energy

    • #76098
      El Arcón
      Guest

      >What are quarks made of?
      spacetime

      • #76101
        Anonymous
        Guest

        This makes some intuitive sense. They are little points of space that become twisted up, as if you had pinched and twisted a fabric, hence stretching the space around them.

      • #76166
        Anonymous
        Guest

        >What are quarks made of?
        >spacetime
        Go back to reading shitty pop physics article you utter midwit

    • #76099
      Anonymous
      Guest

      muons and gluons

      >source a colorful poster in the physics dept. of my low tier degree mill university

    • #76102
      Anonymous
      Guest

      quark, obviously duuhh

    • #76104
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Lego.

    • #76106
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Platonic Forms.

    • #76108
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Ill tell you what they are not: Fields.
      Midwits love their fields but particles are not fields. Field excitations are also not particles.
      A field is just a operator-valued function. The operators themselves are not particles, they just operate on kets, the kets themselves are not particles they just symbolize the state of a particle.

      • #76109
        Anonymous
        Guest

        To say that a particle is a field would be like saying that a pendulum is that little greek letter you write down to represent the value of the angular position of the pendulum on the motion equation.

        • #76134
          Anonymous
          Guest

          maybe it is the opposite ever think about that?

      • #76117
        Anonymous
        Guest

        >Midwits love their fields
        No, popsci and midwit knowledge is still infested with the factoid that particles are a coherent thing. Midwits know more about meme string theory than the field understanding of reality.

      • #76118
        Anonymous
        Guest

        You’re freaking scrotebrained.

        • #76119
          Anonymous
          Guest

          Hit a nerve huh? You love your fields.

    • #76111
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Existence.

      This is the objectively correct answer.

    • #76113
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Quarks aren’t particles.

      • #76114
        Anonymous
        Guest

        That’s right. They are blips in the aether.

        • #76115
          Anonymous
          Guest

          Seriously. Even valence quarks only make sense with PDFs

    • #76121
      Anonymous
      Guest

      I just start thinking of quarks as programming objects (although I usually use this way of thinking for most particle stuff). They literally just hold data and have basic functions to interact with other objects. Any anons wanna challenge my way of thinking? Would be interested in hearing if there is something "more" to quarks.

      • #76124
        Anonymous
        Guest

        “It from bit” as John Wheeler put it. Without bits, without information, nothing else can exist. I always wondered, how is it that our reality even permits things such as computers to exist. It is because there is at base something deeply embedded in how reality works that allows for computation in the first instance. You can extrapolate from that to the computations that human beings are capable of performing. We find ourselves within something at at the very least behaves like a computer.

    • #76126
      Anonymous
      Guest

      >strings

      • #76133
        Anonymous
        Guest

        scrote response from a failed theory

        Quarks aren’t made of anything. They’re purely mathematical entities. A quark is not made up of anything in the same way the number 5 is not made up of anything.

        • #76140
          Anonymous
          Guest

          ??? A 5 is made up of two straight lines and a curved line.

          • #76144
            Anonymous
            Guest

            HA HA HA oh wow

    • #76127
      Anonymous
      Guest

      I like to joke about my "turtle theory" where there are no fundamental particles. Basically, "it’s turtles all the way down"

      • #76131
        Anonymous
        Guest

        Could work anon
        We used to think the elements were indivisible, then we discovered the atom and used to think it was indivisible, then we discovered atomic structure and we used to think ok, this time proton and neutrons are definitely indivisible, then we discovered quarks
        And now we are actively researching wether leptons and quarks might be made of "preons"
        Maybe it’s really fundamental particles all the way down

        • #76139
          Anonymous
          Guest

          It’s almost as if existence was just the infinite fractal flow of eternal inflation. Thanks for that one, Lenny

    • #76130
      Anonymous
      Guest

      They are made of monads

    • #76135
      Anonymous
      Guest

      The only true constant in nature is eternal change. The constants of the universe were not what they are now at the "beginning" of the universe. They changed. The constants of the universe will not be what they are now at the "end" of the universe. They will change again. And so on for eternity. There are no real "beginnings". There are no real "endings". Only change. The only true constant in nature is eternal change.

      • #76137
        Anonymous
        Guest

        >Do you realize
        >That everyone you know someday will die?
        >And instead of saying all of your goodbyes
        >Let them know you realize that life goes fast
        >It’s hard to make the good things last
        >You realize the sun doesn’t go down
        >It’s just an illusion caused by the world spinning round

      • #76138
        Anonymous
        Guest

        The world is the thing that preceded the big bang: eternal inflation

    • #76141
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Make something up and call it virtual

    • #76142
      Anonymous
      Guest

      magic

    • #76143
      Anonymous
      Guest
      • #76145
        Anonymous
        Guest

        The soience will buy into any ridiculous creation theory, so long as it’s compatible with soulless nihilism.

      • #76150
        Anonymous
        Guest

        >everything is information expressed as thought
        >information precedes matter
        Yeah. Carlo Rovelli espouses this view.

      • #76156
        Anonymous
        Guest

        >is the universe a thinking being
        Well, I AM the universe. I AM a thinking being. Therefore, the universe IS a thinking being.

    • #76146
      Anonymous
      Guest

      I’m stupid and particle physics gives me anxiety.
      The more we know, the scary it gets.

      • #76151
        Anonymous
        Guest

        >The more we know, the scarier it gets
        Definitely. There is no climbing out of this rabbit hole

    • #76147
      Anonymous
      Guest

      smaller particles

      • #76152
        Anonymous
        Guest

        And then?
        No and then!
        And then?
        NO AND THEN!
        ANDTHENANDTHENANDTHEN

    • #76149
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Smaller universes

      • #76154
        Anonymous
        Guest

        […]

        galaxies

    • #76153
      Anonymous
      Guest

      quarks

    • #76157
      Anonymous
      Guest

      >quarks
      No such thing.
      All physics past Rutherford’s atomic model is made up gnomish nonsense.

      • #76159
        Anonymous
        Guest

        Put a bullet in your head. You election tourists are a disease go fuck off back to /poo/

    • #76158
      Anonymous
      Guest

      One day some engineers fooled around with stuff in their lab, and they happened to make a quark.
      Unfortunately, they did not record their procedure, and therefore it is unknown to this day
      what the quark is actually made of.

    • #76160
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Little girls

    • #76163
      Anonymous
      Guest

      love

    • #76164
      Anonymous
      Guest

      What are postulations made of? No idea; a question better served for the social sciences. They love making shit up.

    • #76165
      Anonymous
      Guest

      God, to put it simply.

Viewing 39 reply threads
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.