gluons - directional properties

[AntonioLao]

Gluons are the equivalent in QCD (quantum chromodynamics) of the photons in QED (quantum electrodynamics).

Theoretically, there are exactly eight gluons. The reason why there are exactly eight and not more or less is because of 3D color-charge-symmetry conservation. There is three color charges: red (R), green (G), and blue (B) with their antiparticles Rbar, Gbar, Bbar. Each gluon is made of two color charges, a color, and one anticolor making its net color charge colorless. The following are all the eight possible color combinations for the gluons

G1 is R-Bbar, G2 is R-Gbar, G3 is B-Rbar, G4 is B-Gbar, G5 is G-Rbar, G6 is G-Bbar, G7 is R-Rbar or B-Bbar or G-Gbar, G8 is R-Rbar or B-Bbar or G-Gbar leaving one excess-color-symmetry from a possible nine dual color-anticolor combinations. However, there are exactly eight directional properties. Leaving out this one excess-gluon-color-symmetry is tantamount to non-violation of the principle of directional invariance.

[Guille]

Are you trying to say that:

"Each different Gluon represents/creates a directional property"?

If so, in my opinion, the correspondance in number isn't sufficient to say such a thing as that there is a connection between them. If you can proof it, yes, of course.

I forgot, what force do the gluons form? is it strong or weak nuclear?

[jonnyflashbang]

gluons are the strong nuclear force


w & z gauge bosons are the weak nuclear force



they are strings, just like the photon and the graviton

[Guille]

gluons are the strong nuclear force


w & z gauge bosons are the weak nuclear force

Thanks a lot for these two staments which are pieces of information, which is made of physical truths and facts in nature.

they are strings, just like the photon and the graviton

I'm not anti-mathematicall, but the fact that there is mathematical background for this statement doens't make it true: for the simple fact that we are dealing with science, which is about nature, and thus, maths is not good enough if it's alone, math is only a hypothesis if it's alone (in science).

[jonnyflashbang]

I just dio not understand what you are talking about

I am just saying that in both string theory and m theory strings carry the forces of nature

All matter and energy according to greene and witten and many others are made of strings

According to them all properties of sub atomic 'particles' such as spin, charge, etc can be explained in terms of how much energy the strings has, its vibrational 'note' and whether it is wrapped around the hidden dimension of space it is travelling in.

string theory and m theory to me seem to be the best potential toe that we have so far

[dleviwing]

Jonny;
Nonsense is nonsense regardless to the educational level of those who promote it.
Anyone spending time or money on string theory or "m" theory, are wasting both.

Can you give reference to any experiment that can be better explained with either of these theories?

These theories have had a great deal of hype for never having had any experimental verification.

You should concentrate on the scientific facts and not be drawn into the media hype.

[jonnyflashbang]

fair enough

after reading your profile, i respect your opinion as you obviously have much experience and expertise in many areas of physics, of which I have none

thank you for setting me straight


and yes string theory and m theory have had much media hype, that is very true.

but I love The Elegant Universe, I think its a brilliant book....regardless of the hype surronding it

[jonnyflashbang]

string and m theory are philosohies as there is no experiment which would disprove either of them

strings are just too small, the planck length
there is no equipment in the world sensitive enough to directly detect them, infact prof hawkin says you would need a particle accelerator the size of the solar system to detect a string

however
they provide a basis for unification
explain the 'weakness' of gravity, compared to the other forces
give a cause of the big bang
give the universe something to expand into
explain why the forces of nature in this universe are so finely balanced, solving the pencil point problem of the big bang

these are some of the reasons why they interest me....

I understand as a scientist you would consider them a total waste of time and money, that makes total sense
But I am not a scientist....I'm just a moron with too much time on his hands trying to understand the universe around him.......and everyone, even morons like me is entitled to their opinion

thank you for your time

[Guille]

string and m theory are philosohies as there is no experiment which would disprove either of them

strings are just too small, the planck length
there is no equipment in the world sensitive enough to directly detect them, infact prof hawkin says you would need a particle accelerator the size of the solar system to detect a string

however
they provide a basis for unification
explain the 'weakness' of gravity, compared to the other forces
give a cause of the big bang
give the universe something to expand into
explain why the forces of nature in this universe are so finely balanced, solving the pencil point problem of the big bang

these are some of the reasons why they interest me....

I understand as a scientist you would consider them a total waste of time and money, that makes total sense
But I am not a scientist....I'm just a moron with too much time on his hands trying to understand the universe around him.......and everyone, even morons like me is entitled to their opinion

thank you for your time

YES? So much? Wow! it seems it wasn't a waste of time after all!

The above sentence is, obviouslly, sarcastic. You give a list of 6 important factors which make string or m theory usefull/good, but I have some objections:
1.they provide a basis for unification

Ans: this "basis" for unification, I suspect, is the diea of "strings"? If so, then they don't provide a basis for unification because the basis must be absolutelly true, proved mathematically, philosophically, and, most important, scientifically (which especifies empirical proofs).

2.explain the 'weakness' of gravity, compared to the other forces

Ans: The weakness of gravity was proofed before string theory existed...It can be looked back all the way to Einstein's times.

3. give a cause of the big bang

Ans: Not really. The answer to this is actually quite very long, so I will resume it: string theory gives an idea of how the BB started, but not of just before it, just the start of it itself, so it doesn't give the cause. Not even mathematically, in which there' equations are so strange that it is believe that nobody (alone) understands more than 50% of string theory math.

4. give the universe something to expand into

Ans: What is this in which it expands into? Upto what I know about stirng theory, they didn't have a clue about what the universe was in. And, probably, if there is some background, there is no empirical possibility of proof.

5.explain why the forces of nature in this universe are so finely balanced

Ans: Does it? If you refer to the fine coupling constants, then take in mind that they have no proof for them yet, and that the math for them is un-complete.

6. solving the pencil point problem of the big bang

Ans: Never heard about this problem, can you summarize it?

By the way, your justifications for believing in string theory are yours, you don't have to try and convince us, you are free of doing it, really, well done, and carry on believin gin what you want, jonny (I knwo how it feels to be a moron: I'm one).

Finally, at the begining of your post you say that string theory is a philosophy because it has no empirical proof. Well, first, remember you that it was philosophy and philosophers that invented/discovered/desinged the scientific method, including the requierment of experimental data. And, secondly, string theory, I have analize during a whole year of knowledge about it, has no philosophical value at all, it is a mixture of philosophic contradictions, paradoxes, un-credibidility and un-clarity and un-coherence. String theory, thus, is reduced to it's mathematics, which is the only "valuable" thing that it leaves us. But, are so abstract equations, needed or helpfull in any form? If so, let me know.

[Guille]

fair enough

after reading your profile, i respect your opinion as you obviously have much experience and expertise in many areas of physics, of which I have none

thank you for setting me straight


and yes string theory and m theory have had much media hype, that is very true.

but I love The Elegant Universe, I think its a brilliant book....regardless of the hype surronding it

I also loved reading the elegant universe, Greene has probably the best kind of writing which is prefered in reading science divulgative books, but, you see, the fact that it is so good is what makes the reader absolutelly beleive in string theory, because most people didn't knwo about it before reading the book, so he convince you that there are lots of proofsd for string theory and that it is generally accepted by the scientific community and that it is very, very near of being completed and being the final TOE, but all these are clear lies; this revelation is done several months after reading theo book, I can assure this, it happened to me.