PART V

SUB-ATOMIC PARTICLE PHYSICS

Quarks

Particle physicists today are faced with the proton problem.  Is it stable, and does it have internal components? Particle theorists for years have accepted quark theory as the explanation to the component problem.  Experimental physicists have started to be concerned with integrating their results with that theory. Polarized proton-proton spin experiments in colliders have not had the results that quark theory predicted. An article in Scientific American by Alan Krisch discusses the problem. "The experiments even call into question the currently accepted model of the proton's internal structure, which holds that a proton consists of three smaller constituents known as quarks, held together by the strong nuclear force (the force described by QCD)....The quark theory developed by Murray Gell-Mann of the California Institute of Technology has been truly successful in accounting for the masses of the many short-lived particles that are created when protons collide.  On the other hand, the quark theory of particle scattering-quantum chromodynamics (QCD)-has made few predictions that could be verified....I also confess to some confusion about the notion that particles can live as particles inside a proton but not outside" [1].

At what point does matter convert to energy and manifest radiating energy?  Einstein, did not exempt protons from this energy conversion, and if energy manifests positive and negative characteristics, protons must also.  Quark theory provides protons with one third/two third charge.  If protons have one part positive, one part negative, and positive spin angular momentum, then this would manifest the same positive-negative charge ratios that quark theory finds. The opposite is true for electrons.  We know that electrons have a magnetic moment that can be controlled by positive and negative forces, but in the electron situation, the spin angular momentum vector is opposite the spin angular momentum vector of the proton. We measure quarks by their electromagnetic manifestations in collisions, but are we properly accounting for positive and negative spin angular momentum?

Krisch further states: 

The clue comes from the observation that at energies greater than 8 GeV the cross section falls more rapidly when the proton's spins are anti-parallel than when they are parallel.  In other words the protons somehow have a better chance of colliding violently when their spins are parallel.  At 13 GeV the cross section (probability of collision) is four times greater when the spins are parallel than when they are antiparallel.  Although we are not sure exactly what is causing this strange and totally unexpected behavior, it does not appear to be good news for QCD.

According to QCD, two of the three quarks in each spinning proton should spin in the same direction as the proton, and the third quark should spin in the opposite direction.  Therefore no matter whether the two colliding proton's spins are parallel or antiparallel, the collisions will always involve some pairs of quarks whose spins are parallel and some pairs whose spins are antiparallel.  QCD calculations allow for a twofold difference between the spins-parallel and the spins-antiparallel cross sections, but a fourfold difference cannot be easily reconciled with the theory.

What does the ratio of four mean? [2].

It means that all matter is composed of opposites, and when two particles interact, there are four components impacted.  The first particle, positive and negative segments, and the second particle, positive and negative segments, all impact each other in the same manner that the inverse square law operates in both light and gravitational situations. This is what the ratio of four means.

[1] Krisch, A., 1987. Collisions between Spinning Protons. Scientific American, 2 August, Volume 257, p. 42.

[2] Krisch, A., 1987. Collisions between Spinning Protons. Scientific American, 2 August, Volume 257, p. 44-45.

previous

next