|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
What is the status at the moment about "proton and neutron spincrisis" ?
What is the status at the moment about "proton and neutron spin
crisis" ? Experiments (EMC and SMC ? gave result 1988 and 1993 ? that "sum of spins of quarks inside the proton is = 0" and also "sum of spins of quarks inside the neutron is = 0". Hannu |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
What is the status at the moment about "proton and neutron spincrisis" ?
Dear mathematician:
On Mar 23, 7:55*am, mathematician wrote: What is the status at the moment about "proton and neutron spin crisis" ? Experiments (EMC and SMC ? gave result 1988 and 1993 ? that "sum of spins of quarks inside the proton is = 0" *and also "sum of spins of quarks inside the neutron is = 0". A work in progress. http://arxiv.org/abs/0911.1974 David A. Smith |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
What is the status at the moment about "proton and neutron spincrisis" ?
On 23 maalis, 18:24, dlzc wrote:
Dear mathematician: On Mar 23, 7:55*am, mathematician wrote: What is the status at the moment about "proton and neutron spin crisis" ? Experiments (EMC and SMC ? gave result 1988 and 1993 ? that "sum of spins of quarks inside the proton is = 0" *and also "sum of spins of quarks inside the neutron is = 0". A work in progress.http://arxiv.org/abs/0911.1974 David A. Smith If I understood their paper right: pion cloud and three core quarks inside the proton means actually five quarks inside the proton? What experiments says about the number of quarks inside the proton? Hannu Poropudas |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
What is the status at the moment about "proton and neutron spincrisis" ?
On 24 maalis, 10:34, Hannu Poropudas wrote:
On 23 maalis, 18:24, dlzc wrote: Dear mathematician: On Mar 23, 7:55*am, mathematician wrote: What is the status at the moment about "proton and neutron spin crisis" ? Experiments (EMC and SMC ? gave result 1988 and 1993 ? that "sum of spins of quarks inside the proton is = 0" *and also "sum of spins of quarks inside the neutron is = 0". A work in progress.http://arxiv.org/abs/0911.1974 David A. Smith If I understood their paper right: pion cloud and three core quarks *inside the proton means actually five quarks inside the proton? What experiments says about the number of quarks inside the proton? Hannu Poropudas References: EMC, Ashman,J. et al. 1988. Phys. Lett. B206 (1988) 364. SMC Collaboration, Adera,B. et al. 1993. Phys. Lett. B302, 553 (1993). EMC Collaboration, 1989. Nucl. Phys. B328, 1 (1989). References about number of quarks inside proton: Gross,D.J. and Llewellyn-Smith,C.H. 1969. Nucl. Phys. B14 (1969) 337. Adler,S.L. 1966. Phys. Rev. 143 (1966) 1144. Niinikoski,T. 1990. Protonin spinkriisi. Arkhimedes, Vuosikerta 42, 3/1990, 516 pages, pages 411-430. Should these old references from 1966 and 1969 be reinvestigated carefully and correctly updated, if quark content of the proton would really be five ? Hannu |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
What is the status at the moment about "proton and neutron spincrisis" ?
mathematician wrote:
Should these old references from 1966 and 1969 be reinvestigated carefully and correctly updated, if quark content of the proton would really be five ? In QCD, I'm pretty sure that the number of quarks in a nucleon is not a good quantum number. That is, the number of quarks has no definite value. The number of valence quarks is 3, but that is a different statement. For the solar system, it is an excellent approximation to count the planets, asteroids, comets, and sun, add up their masses and kinetic energies, subtract the gravitational binding energy, and obtain the total energy of the entire system. For an atom, it is an excellent approximation to count the electrons and the nucleus, add up their masses and kinetic energies, subtract the electromagnetic binding energy, and obtain the total energy of the atom. That procedure breaks down for a nucleus, and gives wildly incorrect answers. There are several reasons for this, among which a the impossibility of counting, the much stronger binding force, the structure of that force, and the fact that the sum of the valence quark masses is only ~10% of the total (for the other examples, the constituent masses are typically 99% of the total). Tom Roberts |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
might Odissey-Moon be the Google's expected, preferred, designed,"chosen" and (maybe) "funded" GLXP team to WIN the prize? with ALL otherteams that just play the "sparring partners" role? | gaetanomarano | Policy | 3 | September 27th 08 06:47 PM |
just THREE YEARS AFTER my "CREWLESS Space Shuttle" article, theNSF """experts""" discover the idea of an unmanned Shuttle to fill the2010-2016 cargo-to-ISS (six+ years) GAP | gaetanomarano | Policy | 3 | September 15th 08 04:47 PM |
and now, Ladies and Gentlemen, the NSF "slow motion experts" have(finally) "invented" MY "Multipurpose Orbital Rescue Vehicle"... just 20 | gaetanomarano | Policy | 9 | August 30th 08 12:05 AM |