What really are quarks?

[hallenrm]

I am acquainted with this word quarks for over two decades, but honestly speaking even today if a high school student of science asks me "what are quarks?" I would be at my wits end to give a satisfying answer.

 

Quark is an elementary particle, just like electrons, protons and electrons which constitute atoms/molecules that constitute every object around us. Electrons are responsible for electric current that gives us most of the energy we need everyday, although nobody has ever seen an electron but somehow we have settled with their existence, same is perhapos the case with protons and neutrons that constitute the nucleus of an atom according to the atomic structure we learnt in our school science. But, where do quarks exist? somehow it is very confusing and seemingly incomprehensible.

 

Can someone explain in the most simple terms the answer to this basic question? or else post a link to some webpage that seems to do a good job?

[houserichichi]

Is there anything more satisfying than "quarks are what make up protons, neutrons, and a host of other particles"?

 

At least this way when saying "protons and neutrons [are those] that constitute the nucleus of an atom according to the atomic structure we learnt in our school science" it would still be truthful to replace "protons and neutrons" with "quarks", "atomic structure" with "elementary particles physics", and "school science" with "particle physics class".

 

I don't think a high school student would have difficulty understanding the concept, it's just the theory behind it all that should be difficult...but then, that could be difficult for students of any age.

 

(you mentioned protons being elementary particles...they're certainly not...unless you meant to write photons in which case I retract this blurb)

[Sacri Sankt]

the theory is one thing, its all well and good to say theyre what neutrons are made of, but understanding what they really _are_ is a tanalising impossibility. we cant help but try to visualise everything, one third of our brain is devoted to vision. so when we encounter something that just cant be visualised, its maddening.

[Rade]

...Electrons are responsible for electric current that gives us most of the energy we need everyday... but, where do quarks exist?

Perhaps this example would help. Most students could relate this current moving along an electric extension cord. So, as the electron is the fundamental mass unit that carries the energy of the current in the cord, the quarks are the fundamental mass units of what we observe to be "the cord".

[Tormod]

Is there anything more satisfying than "quarks are what make up protons, neutrons, and a host of other particles"?

 

This is basically the easiest way to say it, AFAIK. The qualities of the quarks decide what particle you get.

 

(you mentioned protons being elementary particles...they're certainly not...unless you meant to write photons in which case I retract this blurb)

 

This is a matter of definition. "Elementary particles" are basically considered to be those that constitute the building blocks of atoms. Protons, neutrons, electrons, and photons. Photons are the basic carriers of the electromagnetic force, and have an impact on how electrons behave in the atomic structure - yet photons do not reside in atoms, they only enter and leave (skipping the annihilation of particles when consumed for simplicity :rolleyes: ).

[hallenrm]

Perhaps this example would help. Most students could relate this current moving along an electric extension cord. So, as the electron is the fundamental mass unit that carries the energy of the current in the cord, the quarks are the fundamental mass units of what we observe to be "the cord".

 

If such were the case then electrons, because they do have mass also, must also be made up of quarks. They are not!

 

the concept of elementary particles has indeed become very topsy turvy with the introduction of quarks. Earlier, after Rutherford's gold foil experiment, it was very simple, all matter is made up of three kinds of particles, electrons (negatively charges and located outside the nucleus occupying most of the space) protons (positively charged located inside the nucleus, very massive compared to the electrons just like neutrons that carry no charge).

 

All this buisness of elementary particles has becoe very similar to the concept of Hindu gods. One introduced another, to explain what was not easily explainable earlier.

In that sense atleast science is tending towards the practices of religion, or is it there is no escape from this in any quest for understanding nature?

[Tormod]

All this buisness of elementary particles has becoe very similar to the concept of Hindu gods. One introduced another, to explain what was not easily explainable earlier.

 

It is a mess, but the thing is that they are finding many of the predicted particles. When the new Large Hadron Collider is built we will probably find even more of them.

 

In that sense atleast science is tending towards the practices of religion, or is it there is no escape from this in any quest for understanding nature?

 

You are in a religious mood these days, hallernm... :eek_big: You could just as easily say that you are seeing a manifestation of the string theory, where each string vibrates in a different frequency and creates a different fundamental particle, which congregate to create different atoms...

[Farsight]

For what it's worth, I rather think elementary particles are different types of knots. Or more properly, "topological structures of curved spacetime". Things like strings and branes are discontinuities rather than something with any innate substance of their own. If quarks don't appear on their own, maybe that's because they're partial structures, like the loops in the knot in your shoelaces.

 

 

Edit: I should add that these things aren't "made" out of strings, they have as much surface and substance as a tornado.

 

[arkain101]

In respect to a model;

 

What I can say is that if something contains a force it exists. Motion generates both force and existence.

 

The term mass is at its basics, a volume and area of motion that exerts force when attemping to accelerate it.

 

Understanding what form of motion is occuring in both light and matter building blocks (dubbed quarks), may help define what anything is.

[TheFaithfulStone]

All this buisness of elementary particles has becoe very similar to the concept of Hindu gods. One introduced another, to explain what was not easily explainable earlier.

 

It's turtles all the way down.

 

I'd say all "good problems" are turtle problems.

 

@Popular: Interesting idea. There was something floating around here at one point about fluid dynamics and quarks, but now I can't find it.

 

TFS

[Rade]

If such were the case then electrons, because they do have mass also, must also be made up of quarks. They are not!

? You seem to be saying that all fundamental particles with mass must be made of quarks, if so, this is clearly a false understanding. The leptons are fundamental particles with mass--none are made of quarks. One thing both leptons and quarks have in common is that they are all fermions (not bosons).

[Jimoin]

 

@Popular: Interesting idea. There was something floating around here at one point about fluid dynamics and quarks, but now I can't find it.

 

TFS

 

Is this the page? super-fluid-universe,8m,com (replace commas; can't post links yet.)

 

Be-ware however, the page seems to re-direct at a random amount of time to garbage pages trying to sell spyware.

[Farsight]

TFS: I'm a bit of an Einstein fan, and have always had a preference for "pure marble" geometrical explanations. But yes, fluid dynamics is apt. Jimoin: I don't know anything about a superfluid universe though.

[anglepose]

this brings us back to the question of what is matter can you keep getting smaller and smaller or does it just stop. I like the Idea of a knot in space time, or maybe when space time is veiwed as a 'fabric' the mass is the thread that weaves to form it.

[Farsight]

Maybe "knot" is the wrong word if it gets you thinking about fabric and weave and thread, anglepose. How about "topological soliton" instead?

 

Topological defect - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Qfwfq]

? You seem to be saying that all fundamental particles with mass must be made of quarks, if so, this is clearly a false understanding. The leptons are fundamental particles with mass--none are made of quarks.

Rade, you don't seem to have read Hallen's reply well enough, his sentence began with "If" and was followed by "They are not!" and your quote even included these. Perhaps his grammar wasn't the clearest, he could have said "would necessarily" instead of "must", but he meant much the same as you did but you replied as if he had said the contrary. You should be more careful, because this kind of thing can be annoying to people.