From: Bob Higgins
* My understanding is that quarks don't weigh enough to constituted of
muons.
No one can be sure of that. In fact no one has a clue about the mass of quarks,
and there is a range which varies by orders of magnitude. Since the quark is
not really a particle with its own identity, there are a lot of educated
guesses but no value, and there most likely can never be. The quark is fiction,
but it is fiction which describes reality.
Usually the assigned value (best guess) is based on the actual superset
particle, the one where quarks are claimed to appear. An up quark and down
antiquark in a pion are said to have 140 MeV of mass energy, while in a meson
the same EXACT combination of quarks has an apparent mass of 770 MeV! This is
a range of 500+ percent and there are even more extreme ranges. The shorter the
lifetime, generally… the higher the mass-energy of the (assumed quarks) which
is seen in collisions. This indicates that much of the real mass is actually
“deficit mass” or binding energy.
It is a hopeless mess in 2015, showing how little the physics establishment
really knows, but it opens up one possibility that everyone seems to be missing
(except possibly Axil). That is – proton disintegration, if it exists due to
interactions of dense hydrogen and the strong force, could be gainful by itself
– NO fusion required.
This would be “subatomic fission” of the proton. (I am not the first to suggest
this by any means although most of the others are SciFi). Google: “quark bomb”
or Q-bomb.
* While we hear of protons and neutrons being described as an assemblage
of 3 quarks, they are talking about the valence quarks, and there are many more
quark-antiquark pairs that constitute the whole mass of the proton or neutron.
Because of this, quarks would have to be an assemblage of something smaller -
epos for example.
As a fan of Don Hotson, I agree with that. Quarks may be better defined as epos
in a particular range of configurations, which show up as muons first, then
epos a few milliseconds later.
Jones Beene wrote:
Thanks Mark. This could be a further indication of some kind of cross-identity.
Of course, when an electron is emitted from a neutron beta decay - there are
those who strongly believe that it arose ab initio -- and was never a part of
the 3 quark arrangement.
Thus - it is both an open question and a semantic issue about the meaning
attached to the consistent appearance of muons following a proton
disintegration.
BTW - there is a small minority who affirm that the quark is little more than a
fiction, a place-holder. That is, it is a fiction in the sense that it was
invented to have properties that do show up in high energy events, but it is
has no independent identity of its own. In short, a quark could, at some future
point in time, be redefined as a "bound triad of muons", and there is some
evidence for that description now (and some against). Statistically, the quark
is composed of a triad --- three of something.
Even the neutrino, another "invented particle" has been shown to have a real
identity, having once served the same purpose, which is as place-holder, in the
past. Not the quark.
-----Original Message-----
From: Mark Jurich
... And here's a ZZ --> 4 Muons CMS [Candidate] Event:
https://cds.cern.ch/record/1378103?ln=en
http://www.atlas.ch/multimedia/4-muon-event.html
Here's a movie of a Proton-Proton Collision Event, eventually resulting in 4
Muons (Actual Event, but the movie is a simulation, of course) seen in the
ATLAS Detector. Unfortunately I could not easily find one with CMS.
Perhaps someone will and all the future Hate Mail will stop!
Mark Jurich
