No need to theorize, when there is abundant experimental evidence:
Posted on 11/22/2008 10:22:32 PM PST by neverdem
Correct calculation strengthens theory of quark-gluon interactions in nuclear particles
When it comes to weighty matters, quarks and gluons rule the universe, a new study confirms.
One of the largest computational efforts to calculate the masses of protons and neutrons shows that the standard model of particle physics predicts those masses with an uncertainty of less than 4 percent.
Christian Hoelbling, affiliated with the Bergische Universtät Wuppertal in Germany, the Eötvös University in Budapest and the CNRS in Marseille, France, and his colleagues report their findings in the Nov. 21 Science.
Nearly all the mass of ordinary matter consists of atomic nuclei, which are composed of neutrons and protons. These particles are in turn composed of quarks, which are held together by massless particles called gluons.
Gluons are the messenger particles that carry the strong nuclear force and are constantly being exchanged by the quarks, as described by the theory known as quantum chromodynamics, or QCD. These exchanges bind quarks together by changing a quark property known as color charge. This charge is similar to electric charge but comes in three different types, whimsically referred to as red, green and blue. Six different types of quarks interact with eight varieties of gluons to create a panoply of elementary particles.
The new computations confirm a prediction of QCD, the authors say. That prediction is that the masses of particles such as the neutron and proton come from the energy associated with the interactions between quarks and gluons.
Calculating exactly how those interactions generate the masses of protons and neutrons requires several types of approximations. That’s in part because QCD has some peculiar properties: Because the gluon-mediated force between quarks grows stronger as they separate, quarks can never be seen as free agents, but only in pairs. On the other hand, at...
(Excerpt) Read more at sciencenews.org ...
Global warming predictions are overestimated, suggests study on black carbon (Cornell University)
Micro Fuel Cells Get Closer to Replacing Batteries
Study of ancient and modern plagues finds common features Comment# 10 has the original article by Fauci et al. It's a 10 page pdf link.
FReepmail me if you want on or off my health and science ping list.
“Standard model gets right answer for proton, neutron masses”
What a terrible headline. That’s like writing about the satellite confirmation of time drag as “General relativity gets right answer for clock speed.”
Yes, the masses were what were measured, but that’s not exactly the feature of the experiment....
This article reports the same finding that was previously reported under the rather hysterical headline “E=mc2 finally proved” ( or such. ) I feel a little relieved that this article agrees with my comment on the previous report, that it is QCD which is being verified, and not Einstein’s Special Relativity, which remains the Gold Standard.
Physics ping!
3 of 8,
I perfer 7 of 9. LOL
BTW “Gluons” was the best name that partcle Physicists could come up with as the ‘boson’(transmitter of force) of the “strong nuclear force”, which, by the way was the best name they could come up with naming the “force” in the “Nucleus”, that happened to be “strong”.
I heard that the superconducting super collider at CERN hit a snag. Hey a billion her, a billion there, no matter (PUN)
I need a life, or Jerry Ryan (7of9), I’ll take either.
I’m not saying anything is wrong with that, but 7 of 9 would have never given Quark a second glance (ears all big and all).
What do you mean? ... that this was a "retroactive prediction"? This is what I suppose you mean, but I don't see what's wrong with the headline on this basis.
She's coming back in JJ Abrams new Trek as "38ofD."
It’s not an experiment. It’s simply the best detail calculation of the predicted masses of protons and neutrons based on QCD done so far. The headline is perfectly accurate.
I’ll not watch unless it’s double D. LOL.
No need to theorize, when there is abundant experimental evidence:
As it happens, there have been literally thousands of other measurements of proton/neutron masses and each of those has been a confirmation of the standard model. That by itself is utterly trivial.
If you consult the article, the entire point is that they have confirmed an aspect of quantumchromodynamics. So you'd think that's what the headline would be about.
Classical Physics (Eienstiens theory) and Quantum Mechanics, still do not mesh. I admit that I did not read the body of the article, It seemed to me a rehash of proposed theory, therefore I made good pun(s).
Do you think I need to read this to get my mind on track of latest theory? I just didn’t think it was worth the read
BTW General relativity exceeds Special relativity by several years. If you suggest I read it, I will.
GR does not displace SR, it builds on it. SR stipulates some basics which are by no means contraverted by GR, and E=mc2 is among these.
QM accommodates itself very readily to SR, and this is all that is required to understand what is being claimed in the article.
First, there is no experiment. Second, QCD is the part of the Standard Model that deals with the Strong Force. The headline is accurate.
Isn't this significant? Wasn't Einsteins quest to find a way to bridge the gap btw relativity and quantum mechanics?
This should be considered before all...
I thought George Stevens “Kingfish” defined it best to Andy years ago as “neutrons, protrons, fig newtons, and morons”. The world wonders if Al Gore has considered this hypetnuse?
sarc/
I have not ever contested the accuracy of the headline. I think I rather implied that it is accurate.
What I am observing, as I have said, is that it does not present the underlying point. An article headline of “Richter meters graph large spikes” would not be a good headline for an article about a massive earthquake in California, however accurate it might otherwise be.
The author who wrote the article would agree with me. He sums the whole thing up as “In other words, QCD is QED,” a statement which is neither equivalent to, nor implied by, the actual headline.
The famous gap between GR and QM arises because of the different approaches to gravity. GR treats it as a geometric consequence of curved space-time. QM wants to treat everything as a "field" specified as a function of space-time, so that a special relativistic "flat" space-time is the blank canvas on which QM field theory works. It doesn't know how to involve the canvas itself in its manipulations. ( I sure there are some who would claim otherwise, but this is the difficulty, at any rate. )
The result reported in the article is within the realm of traditional ( special ) relativistic QM, and does not address the celebrated gap between GR and QM.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
