Re: QUARK THEORY
Gpiano99@aol.com
Tue, 10 Aug 1999 14:33:00 EDT
Hi Ren,
Yes in fact these particles have been seen not just their bounce.   These 
particles have been seen using electron microscopes inside these 
Accelerators, but they are hard to look at as one individual quark since they 
are always wanting to group into three.  That's how they have seen the 
filament that I spoke of inside these quarks which are thought to be pure 
energy in the form of a vibration.  They've been packed into a little pocket 
by forces of the big bang.  Gravity and the boson gluons have not been seen 
though.  The reasons why the other quarks charm, strange, bottom, and top 
mysteriously decay back into up and down quarks are still being studied.  One 
reason could be that quarks heavier than our own (Up and Down) are crushed by 
the 8 gluons detected with "conclusion based on cloud chamber experiments" 
mind you gluons haven't been seen directly, but neither has atoms; not like 
how me and you see (photon bounces) all seeing is  bounces anyway.  Atoms 
have been seen using electrons bouncing of them to fill out an image.  
Basically your saying your eye sight is imagined... not true.   We are seeing 
photons bounce.  You can ask your optometrist that question!
    Another thing, I don't understand your idea of hydrogen's imagination.... 
makes no sense and practicality in this realm physics which you so 
delightedly said," I personally am not interested in knowing how the creator 
created his own mind and idea of matter."  That's what physics was made for, 
evidently you are in the wrong field.  Also you said," We have enough useless 
professors regurgitating ideas discovered 100 years ago by people with 
nothing more than a clear brain unfettered by scientific jargon."  Mind you, 
the quark ideas were coming out around the same time atoms were being proved 
true.  Quite the opposite now, the proof of quarks are no here and this part 
of particles physics is quite new.  In fact discoveries have come out just in 
the past sixteen years 1983 including others in 1990 of their proof.  
    Last but not least, you said," For God's sake think simple and make some 
practical work instead of blinding us with theoretical rubbish that get's no 
one anywhere."  Sorry, this is no longer theoretical rubbish.  In fact, you 
sound like your more worried about inventing something and becoming famous 
then understanding and stumbling across ideas with experiments.  You know 
there's a place to get instant fame... its called Hollywood... it might be a 
little easier for you then this practice.  
    I apologize for not writing my name on my last paper.
    If you'd like to learn more about quarks here's a web address that will 
explain and show where all the quarks were discovered and the facility and 
its name.
    http://dbserv.ihep.su/pdg/cpep/adventure_home.html
    Quarks are simple by the way.  The further you get down into physics the 
simpler it gets... that's why they are called --fundamental-- particles of 
matter.  The rules for which they come by are more strict making it easier to 
probe new ways of approaching a problem. 
Jeremy Lynn Mumme