[socratus]

The wish of the scientists to understand the picture of Existence is great.
That is why, aspiring to understand the structure of micro particles,
they created a new theory "quantum chromodynamics ", "quark model", 1963.
But the "quantum chromodynamics " theory approves
that it is impossible to see quarks.
* * *
“Once upon a time there was a man who was a very good expert on dragon.
He studied versions of dragons, their attributes and habits most carefully .
He could skilfully distinguish one kind of dragon from another.
But, unfortunately, for all his ife he never met any dragon. .
And he did not hear, that someone another should see dragon. .
When this scientist came nearer to old age and got tired from studing dragons,
he began to train the young people, that they also understood this major
area of knowledge – dragonology as well.”
/ From the book V.P. Shelist "Splinters" /
* * *
The dragon theory was created a long time ago.
The quark theory was recently created.
The dragon is a strange beast.
And the quark is also a strange beast.
Both of them are from one myth.
Only different times gave this myth the different names.

[socratus]

Interesting article by Vertner Vergon.

Years ago, I attended a lecture at Caltech by Gell-Mann in which he
explained why he developed the THEORY of the quark. He was looking for
a common denomenator to the atomic zoo -- a common denominator of
characteristics. He found some (3) and didn't know what they really
were so he called them Quarks. Later he found more, so he had 6. From
there the theory grew like topsey and develped colors -- BECAUSE THEY
DIDN'T KNOW WHAT THE HELL THEY WERE. Some theory.
(Then there's "up" "down" --- and I'm waiting for "sideways" )
The quark has never been isolated. So instead of admitting there was no
such thing, it was pronounced that it could not escape the nucleus. How
convenient..
Bill uses as an argument that the rest of humanity believes in the
quark. Humanity believed in Ptolemy's universe for FOURTEEN CENTURIES.
And more recently, practically all of humanity celebrated New Year 2000
as the beginning of a new milleniuim while the FACT is the new
millenium started with the year 2001.
"Humanity" can be very stupid at times.
A more apropos story for the non-existent quarks is the fable about the
King who wore no clothes. Everybody commented on how COLORFUL his
clothes were (the same colors as have quarks) but, alas, the king was
naked.
If anyone wants to read a theory of the sub-particle structure of the
universe, they can go to http://www.wbabin.net (The General Science
Journal) --find the list of authors pull down -- click on Vertner
Vergon and read the monograph, "On the Quantum as a Physical Entity".

VERGON

[michellemfry]

Some things are not for us to have and to hold. It is more important as to whether or not the matter believes that the quarks exist. Does it respond to them as if they are there? Does the proton, something which resists decay for up to 10^33 years, behave chemically and physically as if there is something there?
The reason that you go along and stub your toe on something is that the event is one of all the interactions of matter's particles coming together to forbid your foot from passing right through. Your matter has met other matter and the result is a blow to your flesh. Quite fascinating to think about. Your matter has detected other matter, simply, and without calculation.

[Guille]

Socratus,

I donot deny the possibility tha quarks are wrong in the explanation of the universe, but how do you explain all the phenomena described by them? I mean, we don't explain anything in the universe with the need of the idea of dragons, at least in present science, but we do need the idea of quarks.

[socratus]

Dear Guille wrote:
but we do need the idea of quarks
===========
We also need accelerators.
=========================
God, Devil and physicists.

The wise God carefully collected the constants of Nature
to build our beautiful Earth.
At one time, physicists wanted to build the picture of Genesis
originating from the basic constants of Nature.
And what are they doing now?
In 1906, Lord Rutherford studied internal structure of atoms,
bombarding them with high energy a- particles.
This idea helped him understand the structure of atom.
But the clever Devil interfered and gave advice to physicists to enlarge the target.
Bomb them!
And physicist created huge cannon-accelerators of particles.
And they began to bomb micro particles in the vacuum, in hoping to understand
their inner structure. And they were surprised with the results of this bombing.
Several hundreds of completely new strange particles appeared.
They lived a very little time and do not relate to our world.
Our Earth needs its real constants of nature. But this was forgotten.
What God carefully created, is destroyed in accelerators.
And they are proud of that. They say: we study the inner structure of the particles.
The clever and artful Devil is glad. He again has deceived man.
Physicist think, that an accelerator - is first of all the presence of huge energy.
And the Devil laughs.
He knows, that an accelerator - is first of all the Vacuum.
But this, he has withheld from man.
He has not explained that the Vacuum is infinite and inexhaustible.
And in infinity there is contained an infinite variety of particles.
And by bombing the vacuum, one can find centaurs and sphinxes.
But my God, save us from their presence on Earth.

[socratus]

Imagine a man who breaks watches on the wall.
And then he tries to understand the mechanism of the watches
by thrown cogwheels, springs and small screws.
Does he have many chances to succeed?
As many as the scientists have who aspire to understand
the inner structure of electron by breaking them into accelerators.
If not take into account the initial conditions of Genesis,
the fantasies of the scientists may be unlimited.

[Kismet]

I am Lack of knowledge to judge if the theory is true or not. But from my understanding that there are six types of quarks (up, down, top, bottom, charm, strange) if i dont make any mistake,and up, top, charm are 2/3+ and down, bottom, strange are 1/3-. proton and neutron are both made out of three quarks. protons has two 2/3+ quarks and one 1/3- quark and neutron has one 2/3+ quark and two 1/3- quarks. The only one reason which i can think of right now why the theory is introduced is because this theory can bitterly explan why a nuclear will stay together with proton repel each other.

[socratus]

Mathematical illness in the physics.

Physicists do not dictate to Nature their laws.
Laws of nature are a reality, which exists independently from the researcher.
Physicists only perceives them.
That is why Einstein once said that the scientists
only have freedom to solve crossword, which was created by Nature.
=========================
The American scientist G. Gibbs wrote:
"Mathematician may say all that he wants,
but physicist must maintain at least some spark of common sense “.
Now common sense in the theory is not saved.
In physics, it was regarded as a tradition that an obligatory condition
of a good theory was a small number of parameters.
Now such traditions are lost.
Now the scientists in order to explain some phenomena
introduce new parameters and postulates.
It is an "illness" of the modern science.
Physics got sick with "parametric disease". And with the help of such a method,
with the help of extra parameters and postulates, one can explain anything he likes.
============================
Other kind of "illness" in physics this is misunderstanding the structure of infinity.
Quantum theory approves, that at interaction between
electron with Vacuum the parameters of electron (mass, charge ….) become infinite.
To avoid infinity the mathematicians have thought up a «method of renormalizations».
.However, R. Feynman said, that: «The method of renormalizations is a way
to tidy up rubbish under a carpet».
Using artificial mathematical methods, it is possible to get out
of any theoretical difficulty, but the question remains:
«What relation does it have towards nature? »
What is the electron?
"What is the purpose of interaction between electron and proton?".