It is possible to analyse particle decays and their interactions to reconstruct the structures of particles and atomic nuclei in a realistic way. This leads inter alia to the result that atomic nuclei are grids of certain types of particles (light mesons) in the highest order according to the number of particles.
This lattice model described the properties of nuclei very good as the binding energy, the well-defined surface of nuclei, all types of decays and so on.
In particular, the usage of additional particles (quarks) which are invented on a theoretical way is not required.
Thesis The Reason of a realistic View to Particles and Atomic Nuclei
Dear M. Alvioli!
It is proven that nucleons consist of subparticles. To claim this particles are "quarks" is a pure theoretical interpretation. The great experiment at LHC has proven: Quarks do not exist! The euphoric expectations of theoreticians and experimenters were disappointed and they should be honest and say: the theory has a great problem.
The sub-structure of the proton is: p+ = ( π+ π− μ+). This results inter alia from analysis of the interaction between proton and anti-proton - see the linked paper. The sub-structure of the neutron is: n = (K+ π−). The duality of particles results from inverse structure as you can see. The sub-particles of protons and neutrons merge within atomic nuclei to an unitary particle grid.
Hans
Dear Alrik!
Sorry, but you have not understand the actual problem. You repeat the well known and very questionable theories but there is a description of particles and nuclei possible being based on the secure knowledge. There is no need for additional particles like "quarks".
Just to single out one point of your comment: "muons have an incredibly short lifetime, but protons are stable at least for several times the age of the universe." What about the assumed and desired "quarks"? Theory claims: They exist only in confinement. I call this a lame excuse.
Muons and all the other light mesons are proven at nuclear fragmentations! They are stable within the structural cohesiveness. We have to define stability as the impossibility of decay under prevailing conditions.
Physics has to evaluate the facts and describe the reality. It is in present unfortunately a wishful thinking, a theoretical castle in the air.
Hans
@Alrik: I have no time to answer always at once.
You say: "Protons do not consist of muons bound to pions" and " I've not even mentioned quarks." What is your opinion then?
Do you consider that the properties of the light mesons (of protons, of neutrons, of atoms) in bound states much different from their properties as single objects?
The wave fuctions are merely a mathematical modeling to describe particles. Free moving particles show wave properties. This is to be espected if you know about the affinity between electromagnetic radiation and particles in particular electrons and positrons as the elementary building blocks of material matter. Bohrs questionable assumption of movement within the structures of atoms (and also particles and nuclei) was converted by Schrödinger into a less contradictory form as standing waves. Every wave would sooner or later collapse also at the level of particles.
The order within the atomic nuclei and foreseeable the atomic shells is given by a strict geometrical arrangement. Every particle has its exact allocated position. The assumption of standing waves is a only weak approximation to the reality.
But what can we espect from a science which invents its own objects like "quarks" when they run out of ideas.
Supplement
@ Alrik: You request: "Please prove, that your muon/pion/pion "proton" has the same rest mass a real one." Why and how have I to prove a measurable size? The measurable sizes (at least the constants) are the foundations of physics not the calculations especially the calculations besing on theories. You mean probably "calculate".
You should also ask the theoreticians to prove the rest mass of the proton by using of obviously not existing particles (quarks) with indefinite mass.
@Alrik: "I'm interested in evidence."
The observed real particles are the first and most important evidence of the declaration of the structures of the microcosm.
I am not responsible for the archaic way in physics to declare the reality by ideas as at the times of Abrahm and Moses.
What probative force has mathematics? It is nothing than a tool to describe recognition final but never an evidence. Physics calculates the masses assumed particles ("quarks") by using of the proton-mass and based on this it calculates the mass of the proton. No further comment!
The following relationships are visible:
The higher the quotient from particle mass and the sum of the masses of the subparticles the greater is the stability of the composed particle.
Proton: ( (π+ π− μ+ ) : 938,3 / (2*139,6 + 105,7) ≈ 2,44 stable
Neutron ( K+ π- ) : 939,6 / (493,7 + 139,6) ≈ 1,48 unstable
All atomic nuclei have a grater mass-quotient as protons.
Charged particles are more stable than uncharged one. Internal charges have to taken ito account (as in case of neutrons). Particles are not the sum of its subparticles or their elementary particles. It is impossible to calculate their masses only in consideration of electrostatic effects.
...
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Physical Sciences
- Particle Physics