Quark Seeding: Info & Possibilities

[Fizica7]

Hi. I'm wondering if anyone has any info on "quark seeding" like:
Is it possible to dope the crystal lattice of a solid material by replacing electrons with quarks ?

 

[Orodruin]

No.

 

[Fizica7]

Is the mass of the antiquark negative ?
Are the antiquark charges in the neutron 2, -1, -1 ?

 

[Orodruin]

No, these questions appear to me as wild speculation only. Is ere a point to this?

 

[Fizica7]

They shouldn't appear as wild speculation... they were written by Dr F Winterberg in 1975...but maybe quark knowledge was incorrect back then so his work incorrect by today's standards?
Do you have a PhD or doctorate in this field?

 

[Orodruin]

Do you really think nothing has happened in theoretical particle physics in 40 years? I suggest you pick up a modern textbook instead of reading outdated stuff.

 

[Fizica7]

I would read physics manuals or even go to university and study physics if I could afford it... For the moment I can only ask a question on a forum and hope for an educated answer to satisfy my curiosity.

Suppose the magnetic field between quarks is 10^17 gauss...a laser of 10^13 erg, 10^-9 second pulse and focused on an area of 10^-20 sqcm should be enough to achieve the fission of a proton, right?
As in 10^42 erg / sqcm should overcome the 10^17 gauss field, right?

 

[Drakkith]

I would read physics manuals or even go to university and study physics if I could afford it... For the moment I can only ask a question on a forum and hope for an educated answer to satisfy my curiosity.

Most of your questions in this thread can be answered by reading the wikipedia article on quarks and visiting the other articles linked therein.
Below are a few articles to get you started on the subject.

Suppose the magnetic field between quarks is 10^17 gauss...a laser of 10^13 erg, 10^-9 second pulse and focused on an area of 10^-20 sqcm should be enough to achieve the fission of a proton, right?
As in 10^42 erg / sqcm should overcome the 10^17 gauss field, right?

No. Quarks are not held together through the EM force, but the color force (also known as the strong force). Also, I'm not sure fission is the right term for what would happen to the proton. But I'm also not sure what the right term is...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quark
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_confinement
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strong_interaction

 

[mfb]

Free quarks do not exist.

Suppose the magnetic field between quarks is 10^17 gauss...a laser of 10^13 erg, 10^-9 second pulse and focused on an area of 10^-20 sqcm should be enough to achieve the fission of a proton, right?

To focus a laser to a picometer, you would need a gamma ray laser. Good luck building that. High-energetic gamma rays can react with protons independent of the energy, but classical physics does not give a proper description of that interaction, and the results are always hadrons, not free quarks.

 

[Fizica7]

So by what means did a Dr. in 1970s manage to calculate the force between quarks in a neutron to be equal to 10^17 gauss?

Anyway.. his paper suggests a few main ideas:
1) breakdown of neutron to obtain quarks with such a powerful laser ( BTW can "erg" be converted into layman like watt or something?)
2) he presumes the spacing of mass in an electric force field is determined by the Heisenberg uncertainty principle depending on the magnitude of the masses regardless if the masses are positive or negative. So a crystal's lattice spacing would be reduced when electrons are replaced with antiquark thanks to the greater, although negative, mass of the quark vs mass of the electron.

He then gives the theoretical strength as:

e^2/r^4

where e is electron charge and r is Bohr radius which varies inversely with particle mass.
So he says for a replacement of 0.3% of electrons with quarks, the lattice spacing should decrease by a factor of 10 and the strength increases by a factor of 10000.
Also because melting point depends on e^2/r^4 then again a increase in melting point by a factor of 10000.

3) the fission would release double the binding energy per unit mass of proton-antiproton annihilation as calculated with these equations:
Legend: Eb( binding energy), mp(nucleon mass), 3|Maq|(mass of 3 antiquark)

Eb=(Mp-3Maq)c^2

because for antiquarks Maq=-|Maq|

Eb=(Mp+3|Maq|)

So the huge energy release(double that of matter annihilation) comes from

Mp=3|Maq| , and Eb=2Mp c^2

Have to mention that Dr. Winterberg's work appears to be based on the quark theory of matter from P.A.M. Dirac.

Would really appreciate a sort of layman explanation on why this might or might not work.

 

[Fizica7]

Free quarks do not exist.To focus a laser to a picometer, you would need a gamma ray laser. Good luck building that. High-energetic gamma rays can react with protons independent of the energy, but classical physics does not give a proper description of that interaction, and the results are always hadrons, not free quarks.

There is mention of a "hard X-ray" laser.

 

[mfb]

Gauß is not a unit of force.
1970 is long ago. The gluon was not even experimentally observed back then.
10⁷ erg = 1 J

2) he presumes the spacing of mass in an electric force field is determined by the Heisenberg uncertainty principle depending on the magnitude of the masses regardless if the masses are positive or negative. So a crystal's lattice spacing would be reduced when electrons are replaced with antiquark thanks to the greater, although negative, mass of the quark vs mass of the electron.

That does not make sense at all.
Antiquarks have positive masses, by the way.

Legend: Eb( binding energy), mp(nucleon mass), 3|Maq|(mass of 3 antiquark)

Eb=(Mp-3Maq)c^2

That does not make sense either.

Forget what Winterberg wrote in 1970. I doubt it was reasonable physics back then, but it is certainly not reasonable today.

Would really appreciate a sort of layman explanation on why this might or might not work.

It does not work, because there is no content that would remotely make sense.

 

[Fizica7]

Right...ok.. thank you... By the way it was 10^17 erg not ^7.

Edit: just one last question. Is there anything discovered so far that has negative mass?
Edit2: last edit I promise: what are leptons made of, and what are quarks made of? And what's the size ratio of the two? Could there be something hiding inside either of them(sub-quarks particles and sub-lepton particles) ?

 

[phinds]

what are quarks made of?

quarks are elementary (aka fundamental) particles.

 

[mfb]

Right...ok.. thank you... By the way it was 10^17 erg not ^7.

I posted the conversion factor, so you can convert whatever energy value you have.

Edit: just one last question. Is there anything discovered so far that has negative mass?

No.

Edit2: last edit I promise: what are leptons made of, and what are quarks made of? And what's the size ratio of the two? Could there be something hiding inside either of them(sub-quarks particles and sub-lepton particles) ?

At least according to current knowledge, they are elementary particles, and do not have a size. It is possible that they are composite particles but that would require really weird physics to explain all the precision experiments that did not find any hint of an internal structure.

 

[Fizica7]

So if 10^7= 1 Joule, then 10^17= 10000000 joules? An extra 10 zeroes? So watt=j/s, then 10mil joules/s ...1millionth of a second, 1 million joules... 1 million watts... So that laser given in the example at the beginning would be a hard X-ray of 1 MW pulse for 1 nanosecond?

edit: No wait ...10mil j/s and only 1 millionth of s...10 joules...10watts for 1 nanosecond... I'm lost.

 

[mfb]

10, not 7.
10¹⁷ erg = 10¹⁰*10⁷ erg = 10¹⁰ J = 10 GJ.
Post 3 mentions 10¹³ erg in 10^-9 s, that is 10¹³ erg / (10^-9 s) = 10²² erg/s = 10¹⁵ J/s = 10¹⁵ W.

 

[Fizica7]

Oh right... yes it was only 10¹³ for erg.. so you added the -9 to 13 at the powers and got 10²²... Cool.
So that's 10^15 watts if the laser pulse is 1 second.. and if it's only 1ns pulse then the laser needs only be 10^9 Watts= 1bn Watts=1GW.
edit: so hard xray 1 GW pulsed for 1 ns. Is that achievable with q switching? Nd:glass? Nd:yag? Or it requires free electron laser?

 

[mfb]

It is 10¹⁵ W (1PW) for 1 nanosecond. The energy is 10⁶ J.

Those numbers have nothing to do with proton-light interactions however. Those happen frequently at high-energetic particle accelerators, for example, with individual high-energetic photons of negligible intensity.

 

[Fizica7]

Right... one last question... Might be a bit of a leap... is it possible that the Sun is actually a fission reactor at the core and a fusion reactor at the surface... so that the fusion is only a secondary recycling reaction only present at the surface but the main power comes from core fission?

 

[mfb]

No, not at all, and wild speculation does not help.

 

[Fizica7]

Right.. I was thinking that kind of situation would create a boundary with some really weird physics going on.

 

[Drakkith]

Right... one last question... Might be a bit of a leap... is it possible that the Sun is actually a fission reactor at the core and a fusion reactor at the surface... so that the fusion is only a secondary recycling reaction only present at the surface but the main power comes from core fission?

No. Please do some reading on the subject. Also keep in mind that PF rules do not allow wild speculation such as this. We strive to teach mainstream science, and nuclear fusion is the only known energy generation process that could occur given the conditions inside the star during its formation and lifetime.

Some links:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_formation
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_sequence#Energy_generation

 

[mfb]

and nuclear fusion is the only known energy generation process that could occur given the conditions inside the star during its formation and lifetime.

In addition, the neutrinos coming from the various fusion reactions have been measured. We can actually measure how often which fusion reactions happen.
It is even possible to map where the neutrinos come from. From the core, as expected. As neutrinos rarely interact with matter, you can take a picture of the sun during the night, through the Earth.
http://www-sk.icrr.u-tokyo.ac.jp/sk/physics/solarnu-intro-e.html
Another image

 

[Fizica7]

So I guess fission doesn't produce neutrinos?!?.. anyway I take your point about the sun being a fusion reactor.

Now about neutrinos, I've never really managed to comprehend how neutrinos can be used by anyone to take a picture of anything when the best detector only gets a few dozens a year.
And say you could capture a million neutrinos with one sensor in 1 second, in effect a 1 megapixel neutrino camera.
The problem I have is that since neutrinos will not interact with millions of miles of solid lead, how could neutrinos ever give a picture of anything.
I mean x rays are affected by soft tissue, bones in different ways...that's how it works, you get like a gradient map... but neutrinos would not care what your hand contains, everything would look the same, so you'd get a blank picture. Or what?

 

[mfb]

So I guess fission doesn't produce neutrinos?!?

It produces antineutrinos. And those also have a different energy spectrum.

Now about neutrinos, I've never really managed to comprehend how neutrinos can be used by anyone to take a picture of anything when the best detector only gets a few dozens a year.

Modern detectors detect several per day. There are many neutrinos, all with a small interaction probability, but if you multiply number and probability you get a reasonable result. Neutrino detectors have sensitive masses in the kiloton to gigaton range for a good reason.

You don't get a picture of Earth*, but you get a picture of the neutrino source.

*for very high-energetic neutrinos (PeV), Earth is not transparent any more. IceCube starts seeing this effect. More high-energetic neutrinos from above than from below.

 

[Fizica7]

Si if I get this correct... with old detector the only neutrinos detected were those which don't interact much with normal matter, aka earth, but with new detectors you start seeing the types of neutrinos which interact a lot better with normal matter?
Is that information circulating everywhere about neutrinos and solid lead true? If so the new neutrinos which interact even with the Earth are massively different in their ability to interact, right?

 

[mfb]

The interaction probability depends on energy. Higher-energetic neutrinos interact stronger with matter.

In theory, all detectors can measure high-energetic neutrinos. Those are incredibly rare, however, so you need huge detectors to have a reasonable chance to see a few of them. IceCube is such a huge detector (roughly one cubic kilometer of ice at the south pole).

To stop a large fraction of solar neutrinos (low-energetic neutrinos), you would need tens of millions of kilometers of lead. To stop a large fraction of the highest-energetic neutrinos observed so far, the 10000 kilometers of Earth are sufficient.

There are no "new neutrinos".

 

[Drakkith]

And say you could capture a million neutrinos with one sensor in 1 second, in effect a 1 megapixel neutrino camera.

That's not what 1 megapixel means. A 1 megapixel camera has a sensor with 1 million pixels on it, each of which detects light focused onto it by the optical system. Neutrino detectors use many, may different detectors to image the light emitted by electrons accelerated by interactions with neutrinos in a large tank of liquid (or ice in the case of IceCube). Under these circumstances I don't think you can assign a megapixel-style resolution to the neutrino detector.

The problem I have is that since neutrinos will not interact with millions of miles of solid lead, how could neutrinos ever give a picture of anything.

A simplified explanation is that by watching the light from the accelerated electrons in the tank, the path of the electrons can be computed. This then allows one to compute the direction of the incoming neutrino. Knowing the direction of each incoming neutrino, we can put together an image of their source, which is the Sun in this case.

 

[Fizica7]

Oh right... So you're not actually detecting the actual neutrino, but it's effect on electrons... okay...I was thinking you detect the actual neutrino, but even then my previous assertion is incorrect cause you'd still need a lens capable of focusing neutrinos onto the sensor.
What about a Bose Einstein condensate... Some lab managed to slow light to a few cm/s...Doesn't it also slow, or block and stack, neutrinos?

 

[mfb]

What about a Bose Einstein condensate... Some lab managed to slow light to a few cm/s...Doesn't it also slow, or block and stack, neutrinos?

If you combine random concepts, you rarely get something useful. Especially if you do not know what you combine, this is pointless.

To answer the question: in the same than other matter.

 

[Fizica7]

I guess I'm the armchair scientist :)

 

[jtbell]

So you're not actually detecting the actual neutrino, but it's effect on electrons

By that logic, an ordinary camera doesn't actually detect actual photons, but their effects on a CCD sensor or on silver atoms in photographic film.

 

[Fizica7]

By that logic, an ordinary camera doesn't actually detect actual photons, but their effects on a CCD sensor or on silver atoms in photographic film.

Well what I meant is that a CCD gets hit by photons directly, while the tube amplifiers aren't directly detecting the hits by neutrinos but the hits by photons coming from the water/ice volume.

 

[nikkkom]

I guess I'm the armchair scientist :)

More like "I'm curious about stuff but I'm not willing to read about it even some introductory explanations such as ones in Wikipedia, and instead I waste other people's time by asking very poorly formulated questions".