What are quarks made of?

Troll · Dec 4th 2013, 12:50 PM

I may be wrong, however I don't think I am. It seems to me that any entity that has more than one form, must be composed of a more primitive entity.

The large hadron collider has allowed us to investigate the structure of the universe in greater detail than ever before!

the Higgs boson was thought to be a particle with no spin, electric charge, or color charge. Now thanks to LHC it is being proposed that Higgs has at least 4 colors.

If there is a more primitive constituent entity to the universe than those in the above illustration, what would it be like?

My thoughts...

1. It must have dimension, and that dimension must be infinite in time/space. Certainly it must have influence across the universe. If you agree with the big bang, then limit it to the bounds of the universe...

2. It must have no mass(again, ala big bang it would be the smallest fractional mass of the universe).

3. It must have no charge(or the smallest fractional charge).

4. It must have polarity/orientation. A sphere for example has no polarity unless it is spinning.

It is hard to look for something if you have no idea what it is you are looking for!

Pmb · Dec 5th 2013, 04:35 AM

Originally Posted by Troll

I may be wrong, however I don't think I am. It seems to me that any entity that has more than one form, must be composed of a more primitive entity.

You're wrong. Each quark is a different particle altogether and there is no reason to suspect that its composed of other particles. Theory says that they're not composed of other particles too.

Try using your arguement with neutrinos. There are more than one form of neutrinos too.

Originally Posted by Troll

If there is a more primitive constituent entity to the universe than those in the above illustration, what would it be like?

A question like that doesn't have an answer. If something isn't theoritically possible then asking what theory would say if it wasn't that way isn't a question that will have an answer forth coming.

Troll · Dec 5th 2013, 07:14 AM

Originally Posted by Pmb

You're wrong. Each quark is a different particle altogether and there is no reason to suspect that its composed of other particles. Theory says that they're not composed of other particles too.

Try using your arguement with neutrinos. There are more than one form of neutrinos too.

A question like that doesn't have an answer. If something isn't theoritically possible then asking what theory would say if it wasn't that way isn't a question that will have an answer forth coming.

So then what makes an up quark different from a bottom quark or for that matter what differentiates a lepton from a quark?

Pmb · Dec 5th 2013, 07:22 AM

Originally Posted by Troll

So then what makes an up quark different from a bottom quark or for that matter what differentiates a lepton from a quark?

The answer is similar to the answer given to someone asks What makes an electron different than a muon? The answer is that they're simply two different particles and therefore have different properties.

topsquark · Dec 5th 2013, 08:25 AM

Originally Posted by Troll

the Higgs boson was thought to be a particle with no spin, electric charge, or color charge. Now thanks to LHC it is being proposed that Higgs has at least 4 colors.

Aha! I knew someone had made this statement about the Higgs and color, but I couldn't remember who or where.

There have been many proposed properties for the Higgs. In fact any number of theories have proposed that there is more than one type of Higgs.

I am a bit bewildered, though, about the color comment. Observable particles have no net color charge. The name for this phenomenon is "color confinement." There are three colors, so we get color-anticolor particle pair combinations or 3 color particles. An example of the first is the pion system and an example of the second is a proton. The Higgs connot have 4 colors as that would leave it with a net color charge, which is forbidden. Where did you come across this comment?

-Dan

Troll · Dec 5th 2013, 11:43 AM

Originally Posted by topsquark

Aha! I knew someone had made this statement about the Higgs and color, but I couldn't remember who or where.

There have been many proposed properties for the Higgs. In fact any number of theories have proposed that there is more than one type of Higgs.

I am a bit bewildered, though, about the color comment. Observable particles have no net color charge. The name for this phenomenon is "color confinement." There are three colors, so we get color-anticolor particle pair combinations or 3 color particles. An example of the first is the pion system and an example of the second is a proton. The Higgs connot have 4 colors as that would leave it with a net color charge, which is forbidden. Where did you come across this comment?

-Dan

I saw it first on a television show about the LHC, here is a web reference:
http://www.popsci.com/science/articl...oks-real-thing

Here is a clip from the article:

There are plenty of theoretical questions to address. The Higgs may have four cousin particles, said Tom LeCompte, a physicist at Argonne National Laboratory and a member of the ATLAS team. On a scale of "Higgsiness," this particle may be 100 percent Higgsy, or it may be less, he said. Physicists need to figure out whether it does everything it's supposed to, or if there really are four versions. Maybe there are versions with an electrical charge, or versions that weigh more or less. Maybe it is a scalar particle — a very weird thing indeed, with no charge or spin. It would be the first scalar fundamental particle.

Troll · Dec 5th 2013, 11:55 AM

Originally Posted by Pmb

The answer is similar to the answer given to someone asks What makes an electron different than a muon? The answer is that they're simply two different particles and therefore have different properties.

Saying it is simple puts up walls between us and discovery! It is not that simple, just convenient... there must be an elementary building block to the universe.

Pmb · Dec 5th 2013, 12:03 PM

Originally Posted by Troll

Saying it is simple puts up walls between us and discovery!

Then let me rephrase my response without the simply

The answer is similar to the answer given to someone who asks what makes the electron different than a muon. The answer is that they're two different particles. There's no reason to assume they have the same building blocks.

Troll · Dec 5th 2013, 01:10 PM

Originally Posted by Pmb

Then let me rephrase my response without the simply

The answer is similar to the answer given to someone who asks what makes the electron different than a muon. The answer is that they're two different particles. There's no reason to assume they have the same building blocks.

If they had different building blocks, then the building blocks would have building blocks.

topsquark · Dec 6th 2013, 11:43 AM

Originally Posted by Troll

I saw it first on a television show about the LHC, here is a web reference:
http://www.popsci.com/science/articl...oks-real-thing

Thanks for the link. I'll take a look at it.

Originally Posted by Troll

If they had different building blocks, then the building blocks would have building blocks.

You keep assuming that there must be something truly fundamental. I see no reason to suspect that. The singularity that was pre-Big Bang was supposedly a fundamental particle (being point sized) but that's a one of a kind particle and we can't produce more of them anyway. Leptons (electrons and neutrinos, etc) and quarks are distinct: leptons have a conservation law and quarks don't. I can't imagine any way to create those particles with something more fundamental that would create such a disparity.

-Dan

what are quarks made of