Pretending Subquarks actually exist!

  • 483 Replies
  • 35872 Views
Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
« Reply #180 on: July 06, 2020, 04:26:20 PM »
Stop embarrassing yourselves. You have no idea what the limits are. Not even the greatest egg heads know. Thats why they research! (duh!)

When the atom was discovered, scientists thought that was the smallest. That's why they called it 'atom' (literally means indivisible).

Who is to say what we might learn 100 years from now. I'm saying you cant dismiss a sub quark out of hand because we don't have all the data to make that claim. Maybe one day we will. Or maybe it will be forever out of reach to us. That changes nothing

Scientists today say they haven't found it. That doesn't mean the research ends. I mean imagine they ended the research when they found the atom. 'oh it means indivisible so I guess that's it then'.

How is my agnostic view on the matter trolling? You guys need to grow up.
You are trolling and you know it, stop being such a hypocrite. Going off on a tangent about alien races and timelines while you know exactly what is meant is trolling. Thats what you like to do and everyone knows it.

You said it yourself, subquarks have not been discovered yet while Sandy says they have. This is what this post is about.
You can't fix FE.

*

JackBlack

  • 21558
Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
« Reply #181 on: July 06, 2020, 04:34:47 PM »
I have posted the experimental and theoretical evidence for the evidence of the existence of subquarks right from my first message in this thread.
Subquarks were discovered in 1996 at Fermilab.
The Nobel prize was awarded for the discovery of the fractal charge particles which make up an electron, the preon.
No, they weren't.
You are yet to provide any actual paper indicating such.
The Nobel prize was not awarded for anything like that.
Instead it was awarded for electrons interacting in magnetic fields to produce quasiparticles with fractional charges.
These were not real particles. These were not the components of electrons or quarks.
In fact, they are quite the opposite, being composed of electrons.

Do you actually understand that fundamental contradiction?
You are claiming a particle which is made from X, is actually a sub-component of X, i.e. that X is a sub-sub-component of itself.
In the world of reality, that makes no sense at all.

You can easily read the press release to see all that:
https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/physics/1998/press-release/
Quote
These quasiparticles are not particles in the normal sense but a result of the common dance of electrons in the quantum fluid

This has already been pointed out to you before.
Yet again you are blatantly lying about actual science to pretend your garbage is justified.

When are you going to learn to do your homework?
https://journals.aps.org/prd/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevD.55.R2521
When will you learn to actually do your homework, rather than just skimming through to find anything you think might support you.

Where in the paper does it indicate any actual evidence of subquarks?
Have you even bothered reading the paper? Or did you just pay attention to the title and assume that it must support you?

A subquark is theoretical.  It's existence hasn't been proven.  It may or may not exist.  Your example of Earth's Magnetic Field was also theoretical until it was proven.  And while the magnetic field has always existed, scientifically it wasn't proven to exist until it was. If subquarks are found to actual exist, they won't be theoretical.  Until then, there is no proof of it's existence and thus only exists in theory, not actuality.
I never said things magically begin to exist when evidence of them are found.  See BOLD.
How about you read what I have bolded.
You quite clearly indicated that until there is proof of existence they do not exist in actuality, i.e. they don't actually exist.

So no, you quite clearly indicated that things will magically start existing when proof of their existence is discovered.

Can you not read... it asks the question......and the answer to the question is a resounding no.
Was that your answer, or the paper's answer?
Based upon what I read of the paper their answer appears to be a resounding maybe.
They provided an explanation for the observed results on the basis of a substructure of quarks. While that is not evidence of subquarks (as it isn't making predictions and testing them and instead is entirely post-hoc), it is also not a resounding no.

Just to clarify things.
Additional Fact:-
Nowhere in the known universe have subquarks been discovered.
I don't think you understand what that means.
The known universe includes a very large portion of the universe, including distant stars and the planets around them, which could have sentient alien life which could have discovered subquarks.
Being part of the known universe does not mean we know everything about it.

The clue was in the word known.
Yes, which means we know about it, not everything about it.

Looks like you have a similar problem with, known, let me help you:-
‘recognized, familiar, or within the scope of knowledge’
Yes, for example, Proxima Centuri is within the scope of knowledge.
We know about it.
In fact, we even know about Proxima Centuri b, a potentially habitable planet which could potential have sentient life on it.
They are within the known universe.

It’s really pretty simple once you get the hang of it.

Currently they are saying subquarks are not there
Again, where?
Is that what they are actually saying, or just what you are claiming they are saying?

*

Wolvaccine

  • EXTRA SPICY MODE
  • 25833
Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
« Reply #182 on: July 06, 2020, 04:35:44 PM »
Stop embarrassing yourselves. You have no idea what the limits are. Not even the greatest egg heads know. Thats why they research! (duh!)

When the atom was discovered, scientists thought that was the smallest. That's why they called it 'atom' (literally means indivisible).

Who is to say what we might learn 100 years from now. I'm saying you cant dismiss a sub quark out of hand because we don't have all the data to make that claim. Maybe one day we will. Or maybe it will be forever out of reach to us. That changes nothing

Scientists today say they haven't found it. That doesn't mean the research ends. I mean imagine they ended the research when they found the atom. 'oh it means indivisible so I guess that's it then'.

How is my agnostic view on the matter trolling? You guys need to grow up.
You are trolling and you know it, stop being such a hypocrite. Going off on a tangent about alien races and timelines while you know exactly what is meant is trolling. Thats what you like to do and everyone knows it.

You said it yourself, subquarks have not been discovered yet while Sandy says they have. This is what this post is about.

My issue is the assertion that something doesn't exist if we haven't discovered it

So before we discovered and understood how the earth's magnetic field worked, what was protecting the inhabitants of Earth? Because by the same logic applied here, the Earth's magnetic field didn't exist

And calling people trolls like this is just a lame way of trying to stub an argument you feel you are losing. Seriously get over it

We don't know if sub quarks exist. That is the answer

The answer is not: 'Sub quarks don't exist.' Why? Because we don't know. That's why we keep studying. Researching. Experimenting etc

Quote from: sokarul
what website did you use to buy your wife? Did you choose Chinese over Russian because she can't open her eyes to see you?

What animal relates to your wife?

Know your place

*

JJA

  • 6869
  • Math is math!
Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
« Reply #183 on: July 06, 2020, 04:42:08 PM »
Stop embarrassing yourselves. You have no idea what the limits are. Not even the greatest egg heads know. Thats why they research! (duh!)

When the atom was discovered, scientists thought that was the smallest. That's why they called it 'atom' (literally means indivisible).

Who is to say what we might learn 100 years from now. I'm saying you cant dismiss a sub quark out of hand because we don't have all the data to make that claim. Maybe one day we will. Or maybe it will be forever out of reach to us. That changes nothing

Scientists today say they haven't found it. That doesn't mean the research ends. I mean imagine they ended the research when they found the atom. 'oh it means indivisible so I guess that's it then'.

How is my agnostic view on the matter trolling? You guys need to grow up.

It's trolling because most of us are saying that there is no evidence subquarks exist, which is completely true.

Because you keep ignoring the fact that Sandokhan is insisting it's a FACT that they exist, and THAT is what we have a problem with.

I'd love to see new elementary particles discovered, it would be awesome. But it's just plain wrong for Sandokhan to claim they DO exist, and wrong for you to keep insisting he isn't wrong.

We have been over this again again again. He has no evidence on his side, we do NOT know subquarks exist. Maybe they do, but we do NOT KNOW.  So nobody, not even Sandokhan can claim they do.  Not until they are found, if they exist. 

Can you at least agree that Sandokhan does not have PROOF that subquarks exist? Nobody is going to make you say that CAN'T exist, just that right now, nobody has found one.

*

Wolvaccine

  • EXTRA SPICY MODE
  • 25833
Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
« Reply #184 on: July 06, 2020, 04:51:14 PM »
Stop embarrassing yourselves. You have no idea what the limits are. Not even the greatest egg heads know. Thats why they research! (duh!)

When the atom was discovered, scientists thought that was the smallest. That's why they called it 'atom' (literally means indivisible).

Who is to say what we might learn 100 years from now. I'm saying you cant dismiss a sub quark out of hand because we don't have all the data to make that claim. Maybe one day we will. Or maybe it will be forever out of reach to us. That changes nothing

Scientists today say they haven't found it. That doesn't mean the research ends. I mean imagine they ended the research when they found the atom. 'oh it means indivisible so I guess that's it then'.

How is my agnostic view on the matter trolling? You guys need to grow up.

It's trolling because most of us are saying that there is no evidence subquarks exist, which is completely true.

Because you keep ignoring the fact that Sandokhan is insisting it's a FACT that they exist, and THAT is what we have a problem with.

I'd love to see new elementary particles discovered, it would be awesome. But it's just plain wrong for Sandokhan to claim they DO exist, and wrong for you to keep insisting he isn't wrong.

We have been over this again again again. He has no evidence on his side, we do NOT know subquarks exist. Maybe they do, but we do NOT KNOW.  So nobody, not even Sandokhan can claim they do.  Not until they are found, if they exist. 

Can you at least agree that Sandokhan does not have PROOF that subquarks exist? Nobody is going to make you say that CAN'T exist, just that right now, nobody has found one.

I have my belief which is agnostic on the matter, Timeisup has his belief which is they don't exist and Sandokhan has his that says they do. So why am I the one trolling? Even you say we don't know which honestly when it comes to science (especially this deep into physics) is a far more sensible approach then a flat out 'it doesn't exist'. That is my take

I won't give a definitive answer yes or no. But this is science and the unknown. There is more optimism for believing that there is something, then a flat out rejection out of hand. Have humans really reached peak knowledge?

Quote from: sokarul
what website did you use to buy your wife? Did you choose Chinese over Russian because she can't open her eyes to see you?

What animal relates to your wife?

Know your place

*

JJA

  • 6869
  • Math is math!
Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
« Reply #185 on: July 06, 2020, 05:02:01 PM »
Stop embarrassing yourselves. You have no idea what the limits are. Not even the greatest egg heads know. Thats why they research! (duh!)

When the atom was discovered, scientists thought that was the smallest. That's why they called it 'atom' (literally means indivisible).

Who is to say what we might learn 100 years from now. I'm saying you cant dismiss a sub quark out of hand because we don't have all the data to make that claim. Maybe one day we will. Or maybe it will be forever out of reach to us. That changes nothing

Scientists today say they haven't found it. That doesn't mean the research ends. I mean imagine they ended the research when they found the atom. 'oh it means indivisible so I guess that's it then'.

How is my agnostic view on the matter trolling? You guys need to grow up.

It's trolling because most of us are saying that there is no evidence subquarks exist, which is completely true.

Because you keep ignoring the fact that Sandokhan is insisting it's a FACT that they exist, and THAT is what we have a problem with.

I'd love to see new elementary particles discovered, it would be awesome. But it's just plain wrong for Sandokhan to claim they DO exist, and wrong for you to keep insisting he isn't wrong.

We have been over this again again again. He has no evidence on his side, we do NOT know subquarks exist. Maybe they do, but we do NOT KNOW.  So nobody, not even Sandokhan can claim they do.  Not until they are found, if they exist. 

Can you at least agree that Sandokhan does not have PROOF that subquarks exist? Nobody is going to make you say that CAN'T exist, just that right now, nobody has found one.

I have my belief which is agnostic on the matter, Timeisup has his belief which is they don't exist and Sandokhan has his that says they do. So why am I the one trolling? Even you say we don't know which honestly when it comes to science (especially this deep into physics) is a far more sensible approach then a flat out 'it doesn't exist'. That is my take

I won't give a definitive answer yes or no. But this is science and the unknown. There is more optimism for believing that there is something, then a flat out rejection out of hand. Have humans really reached peak knowledge?

If you were truly agnostic, you would be telling Sandokhan he can't know for sure subquarks exist.

You have no problem telling me things don't exist if I claim they do. If I tell you it's a FACT that the Earth is a sphere, you come back and say I can't know that.

Why can't you do the same with Sandokhan? That's what make your behavior look like a troll, you change your standards based on who is talking.

*

Wolvaccine

  • EXTRA SPICY MODE
  • 25833
Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
« Reply #186 on: July 06, 2020, 05:07:45 PM »
Stop embarrassing yourselves. You have no idea what the limits are. Not even the greatest egg heads know. Thats why they research! (duh!)

When the atom was discovered, scientists thought that was the smallest. That's why they called it 'atom' (literally means indivisible).

Who is to say what we might learn 100 years from now. I'm saying you cant dismiss a sub quark out of hand because we don't have all the data to make that claim. Maybe one day we will. Or maybe it will be forever out of reach to us. That changes nothing

Scientists today say they haven't found it. That doesn't mean the research ends. I mean imagine they ended the research when they found the atom. 'oh it means indivisible so I guess that's it then'.

How is my agnostic view on the matter trolling? You guys need to grow up.

It's trolling because most of us are saying that there is no evidence subquarks exist, which is completely true.

Because you keep ignoring the fact that Sandokhan is insisting it's a FACT that they exist, and THAT is what we have a problem with.

I'd love to see new elementary particles discovered, it would be awesome. But it's just plain wrong for Sandokhan to claim they DO exist, and wrong for you to keep insisting he isn't wrong.

We have been over this again again again. He has no evidence on his side, we do NOT know subquarks exist. Maybe they do, but we do NOT KNOW.  So nobody, not even Sandokhan can claim they do.  Not until they are found, if they exist. 

Can you at least agree that Sandokhan does not have PROOF that subquarks exist? Nobody is going to make you say that CAN'T exist, just that right now, nobody has found one.

I have my belief which is agnostic on the matter, Timeisup has his belief which is they don't exist and Sandokhan has his that says they do. So why am I the one trolling? Even you say we don't know which honestly when it comes to science (especially this deep into physics) is a far more sensible approach then a flat out 'it doesn't exist'. That is my take

I won't give a definitive answer yes or no. But this is science and the unknown. There is more optimism for believing that there is something, then a flat out rejection out of hand. Have humans really reached peak knowledge?

If you were truly agnostic, you would be telling Sandokhan he can't know for sure subquarks exist.

You have no problem telling me things don't exist if I claim they do. If I tell you it's a FACT that the Earth is a sphere, you come back and say I can't know that.

Why can't you do the same with Sandokhan? That's what make your behavior look like a troll, you change your standards based on who is talking.

He has not addressed me and I have made my claims and beliefs on here quite known as it is. I'm talking to the people who are addressing/antagonising me

If Sandokhan wants to tell me I'm wrong I have no problem stating my beliefs directly to him. Difference is I won't be a dick about it. You and especially Timeisup are quite rude to him. This is not even a debate board and neither of you are here in good faith.

Quote from: sokarul
what website did you use to buy your wife? Did you choose Chinese over Russian because she can't open her eyes to see you?

What animal relates to your wife?

Know your place

*

NotSoSkeptical

  • 8548
  • Flat like a droplet of water.
Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
« Reply #187 on: July 06, 2020, 06:27:05 PM »
A subquark is theoretical.  It's existence hasn't been proven.  It may or may not exist.  Your example of Earth's Magnetic Field was also theoretical until it was proven.  And while the magnetic field has always existed, scientifically it wasn't proven to exist until it was. If subquarks are found to actual exist, they won't be theoretical.  Until then, there is no proof of it's existence and thus only exists in theory, not actuality.
I never said things magically begin to exist when evidence of them are found.  See BOLD.
How about you read what I have bolded.
You quite clearly indicated that until there is proof of existence they do not exist in actuality, i.e. they don't actually exist.

So no, you quite clearly indicated that things will magically start existing when proof of their existence is discovered.

No, your interpretation is incorrect.  You are equating my statement as upon proof that suddenly they exist.  Proof confirms existence.  You can't say something definitively exists if there is no proof that it exists, which is why I said it exists theoretically, but not actually.  There is no confirmation of actual existence.  That doesn't mean if it does actually exist it magically comes into existence upon proof.  You are arguing semantics.

Do unicorns exist?

What about pixies?

What about Thor, Loki, and Odin?  Do they exist?

What about the Greek and Roman gods and demi-gods?  Do they exist?

What about the Minotaur?

You are playing semantics based on hindsight.  Yes magnetic fields exist and have been proven.

Until you have proof of existence, you can't definitively say they exist.  That's why I said they only exist theoretically, actual existence is not proven, ie non-existent.
Rabinoz RIP

That would put you in the same category as pedophile perverts like John Davis, NSS, robots like Stash, Shifter, and victimized kids like Alexey.

*

Stash

  • Ethical Stash
  • 13398
  • I am car!
Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
« Reply #188 on: July 06, 2020, 07:24:35 PM »
I just said that they haven't been proven to exist.

But they have.

https://inis.iaea.org/collection/NCLCollectionStore/_Public/13/643/13643701.pdf

Subquarks-Possibly the Most Fundamental Form of Matter

A model of "subquark pregeometry" in which the graviton is also a composite of a subquark-antisubquark pair: Einstein's gravity is a quantum effect of matter.

Everything is made of subquarks and every force is due to them.


And then from the conclusion of the paper cited - The author "believes" they exist:

"In conclusion, as I have discussed in this talk, a few of the fundamental problems in subquark models have been solved, but most of them still remain to be solved. I believe that subquarks are there and working. Much more efforts would be needed before finding the true theory of subquarks, which may be the final theory in physics.”

So no, Sandy is wrong. They have not been proven to exist. For some reason he misinterprets a paper regarding the theory of their existence with actually being found to exist. It doesn’t mean they don’t exist it just means that Sandy is incorrect in saying that they have been proven to exist. It doesn’t really seem that complicated.

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 7049
Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
« Reply #189 on: July 06, 2020, 09:59:54 PM »
As I said, preons/subquarks were discovered: the list on wikipedia is incomplete.

Here is the paper to prove it:

J. Martin; S. Ilani; B. Verdene; J. Smet; V. Umansky; D. Mahalu; D. Schuh; G. Abstreiter; A. Yacoby (2004). "Localization of Fractionally Charged Quasi Particles".

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15310895/

An outstanding question pertaining to the microscopic properties of the fractional quantum Hall effect is understanding the nature of the particles that participate in the localization but that do not contribute to electronic transport. By using a scanning single electron transistor, we imaged the individual localized states in the fractional quantum Hall regime and determined the charge of the localizing particles. Highlighting the symmetry between filling factors 1/3 and 2/3, our measurements show that quasi-particles with fractional charge e* = e/3 localize in space to submicrometer dimensions, where e is the electron charge.

http://yacoby.physics.harvard.edu/Publications/Localization%20of%20Fractionally%20Charged%20Quasi%20Particles_2004.pdf

Our results constitute direct evidence that quasi-particles with charge e/3 localize at
1/3 and 2/3. Moreover, our results highlight the symmetry between filling factors 1/3 and 2/3, indicating directly that at 2/3 the quasiparticle charge is e/3.

One can clearly see that the step height in the fractional regime is only about 1/3
of the step height in the integer regime, confirming the localization of quasi-particles with e* e/3 for both 1/3 and 2/3.


"Quasiparticle, in physics, a disturbance, in a medium, that behaves as a particle and that may conveniently be regarded as one. "

"This "electron with a different mass" is called an "electron quasiparticle"."


It is much easier to access the preons in an electron, than it would be to try the same thing using quarks (protons).

*

Stash

  • Ethical Stash
  • 13398
  • I am car!
Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
« Reply #190 on: July 06, 2020, 10:17:10 PM »
As I said, preons/subquarks were discovered: the list on wikipedia is incomplete.

Here is the paper to prove it:

J. Martin; S. Ilani; B. Verdene; J. Smet; V. Umansky; D. Mahalu; D. Schuh; G. Abstreiter; A. Yacoby (2004). "Localization of Fractionally Charged Quasi Particles".

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15310895/

An outstanding question pertaining to the microscopic properties of the fractional quantum Hall effect is understanding the nature of the particles that participate in the localization but that do not contribute to electronic transport. By using a scanning single electron transistor, we imaged the individual localized states in the fractional quantum Hall regime and determined the charge of the localizing particles. Highlighting the symmetry between filling factors 1/3 and 2/3, our measurements show that quasi-particles with fractional charge e* = e/3 localize in space to submicrometer dimensions, where e is the electron charge.

http://yacoby.physics.harvard.edu/Publications/Localization%20of%20Fractionally%20Charged%20Quasi%20Particles_2004.pdf

Our results constitute direct evidence that quasi-particles with charge e/3 localize at
1/3 and 2/3. Moreover, our results highlight the symmetry between filling factors 1/3 and 2/3, indicating directly that at 2/3 the quasiparticle charge is e/3.

One can clearly see that the step height in the fractional regime is only about 1/3
of the step height in the integer regime, confirming the localization of quasi-particles with e* e/3 for both 1/3 and 2/3.


"Quasiparticle, in physics, a disturbance, in a medium, that behaves as a particle and that may conveniently be regarded as one. "

"This "electron with a different mass" is called an "electron quasiparticle"."


It is much easier to access the preons in an electron, than it would be to try the same thing using quarks (protons).

Nothing about subquarks in all of this. Sorry, we just haven't been able to snare one yet. So as it stands, they are not yet "proven" to exist. Simple as that.



*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 7049
Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
« Reply #193 on: July 06, 2020, 10:46:32 PM »
Saying that they do not exist is no longer an option.

I have both the theoretical and experimental proofs.

Here is the paper to prove it:

J. Martin; S. Ilani; B. Verdene; J. Smet; V. Umansky; D. Mahalu; D. Schuh; G. Abstreiter; A. Yacoby (2004). "Localization of Fractionally Charged Quasi Particles".

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15310895/

An outstanding question pertaining to the microscopic properties of the fractional quantum Hall effect is understanding the nature of the particles that participate in the localization but that do not contribute to electronic transport. By using a scanning single electron transistor, we imaged the individual localized states in the fractional quantum Hall regime and determined the charge of the localizing particles. Highlighting the symmetry between filling factors 1/3 and 2/3, our measurements show that quasi-particles with fractional charge e* = e/3 localize in space to submicrometer dimensions, where e is the electron charge.

http://yacoby.physics.harvard.edu/Publications/Localization%20of%20Fractionally%20Charged%20Quasi%20Particles_2004.pdf

Our results constitute direct evidence that quasi-particles with charge e/3 localize at
1/3 and 2/3. Moreover, our results highlight the symmetry between filling factors 1/3 and 2/3, indicating directly that at 2/3 the quasiparticle charge is e/3.

One can clearly see that the step height in the fractional regime is only about 1/3
of the step height in the integer regime, confirming the localization of quasi-particles with e* e/3 for both 1/3 and 2/3.


"Quasiparticle, in physics, a disturbance, in a medium, that behaves as a particle and that may conveniently be regarded as one. "

"This "electron with a different mass" is called an "electron quasiparticle"."


It is much easier to access the preons in an electron, than it would be to try the same thing using quarks (protons).

*

Stash

  • Ethical Stash
  • 13398
  • I am car!
Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
« Reply #194 on: July 06, 2020, 10:56:04 PM »
Saying that they do not exist is no longer an option.

I have both the theoretical and experimental proofs.

Here is the paper to prove it:

J. Martin; S. Ilani; B. Verdene; J. Smet; V. Umansky; D. Mahalu; D. Schuh; G. Abstreiter; A. Yacoby (2004). "Localization of Fractionally Charged Quasi Particles".

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15310895/

An outstanding question pertaining to the microscopic properties of the fractional quantum Hall effect is understanding the nature of the particles that participate in the localization but that do not contribute to electronic transport. By using a scanning single electron transistor, we imaged the individual localized states in the fractional quantum Hall regime and determined the charge of the localizing particles. Highlighting the symmetry between filling factors 1/3 and 2/3, our measurements show that quasi-particles with fractional charge e* = e/3 localize in space to submicrometer dimensions, where e is the electron charge.

http://yacoby.physics.harvard.edu/Publications/Localization%20of%20Fractionally%20Charged%20Quasi%20Particles_2004.pdf

Our results constitute direct evidence that quasi-particles with charge e/3 localize at
1/3 and 2/3. Moreover, our results highlight the symmetry between filling factors 1/3 and 2/3, indicating directly that at 2/3 the quasiparticle charge is e/3.

One can clearly see that the step height in the fractional regime is only about 1/3
of the step height in the integer regime, confirming the localization of quasi-particles with e* e/3 for both 1/3 and 2/3.


"Quasiparticle, in physics, a disturbance, in a medium, that behaves as a particle and that may conveniently be regarded as one. "

"This "electron with a different mass" is called an "electron quasiparticle"."


It is much easier to access the preons in an electron, than it would be to try the same thing using quarks (protons).

Nope, still nothing about theorized sub-quarks. Sorry, you're trying to convince us you can make lead into gold and we all know you can't do that. Sub-quarks may exist, but it has not yet been proven.

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 7049
Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
« Reply #195 on: July 06, 2020, 11:14:46 PM »
You are trolling the thread.

How many times do we have to go through this?

Preons are subquarks, that is what they are called for electrons.

Electron substructure = preons

Quark substructure = subquark

One and the same thing.

I have the references which prove this very point.

Your stubbornness is without merit.

*

Stash

  • Ethical Stash
  • 13398
  • I am car!
Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
« Reply #196 on: July 06, 2020, 11:42:30 PM »
You are trolling the thread.

How many times do we have to go through this?

Preons are subquarks, that is what they are called for electrons.

Electron substructure = preons

Quark substructure = subquark

One and the same thing.

I have the references which prove this very point.

Your stubbornness is without merit.

So far your references don't prove anything of the sort. All I'm saying is that sub-quarks may exist. But they have not been proven yet to exist as of this date in 2020. Simple as that.

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 7049
Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
« Reply #197 on: July 06, 2020, 11:44:30 PM »
Preons are subquarks.

Can you understand this much?

This is what modern science says, not me, and I have the references.

Preons (substructure of the electrons) have been discovered, plenty of experimental evidence.

That is why your statement is without merit.

*

Wolvaccine

  • EXTRA SPICY MODE
  • 25833
Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
« Reply #198 on: July 06, 2020, 11:55:48 PM »
You are trolling the thread.

How many times do we have to go through this?

Preons are subquarks, that is what they are called for electrons.

Electron substructure = preons

Quark substructure = subquark

One and the same thing.

I have the references which prove this very point.

Your stubbornness is without merit.

So far your references don't prove anything of the sort. All I'm saying is that sub-quarks may exist. But they have not been proven yet to exist as of this date in 2020. Simple as that.

Perhaps you can both claim a win? The experiments observed something that goes beyond explaining a quark. We haven't physically identified it as definitive like something we can tangibly play with or observe like the atom but clearly by our own observations, something is missing from the puzzle. Consider a sub quark to be smaller than a quark - whatever it is or whatever we call it on the future

Same was true of the illusive 'God particle' we had models that worked with their inclusions and despite not having found it, the theory helped better our understanding. Once we observed it, it simply confirmed a lot of models rather than write new ones (though I'm sure it's discovery helped even further)

Scientists will tell you there is a 'Planet 9' or something in the far reaches of the solar system with a huge mass despite never having observed it directly. Why? Because of the way other objects behave around there

Scientists say the universe is mostly made up of 'dark matter/energy' despite never having observed it. Why? Because of the behaviour of things we can observe.

So perhaps you could say the same is true of the quark. We have seen behaviour which hints at something further. Maybe in the future it will be deemed a sub quark. Or another term coined. Whatever it is I think this argument is not worth the deep seeded animosity for each other. Consider yourselves both right as a point of semantics dividing the opinion.

Quote from: sokarul
what website did you use to buy your wife? Did you choose Chinese over Russian because she can't open her eyes to see you?

What animal relates to your wife?

Know your place

*

Stash

  • Ethical Stash
  • 13398
  • I am car!
Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
« Reply #199 on: July 07, 2020, 12:00:13 AM »
Preons are subquarks.

Can you understand this much?

This is what modern science says, not me, and I have the references.

Preons (substructure of the electrons) have been discovered, plenty of experimental evidence.

That is why your statement is without merit.

Yes I can understand it's a theory, a construct, a model. But to date, we haven't proven the existence. You understand the difference, right?

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 7049
Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
« Reply #200 on: July 07, 2020, 12:07:10 AM »
Saying that they do not exist is no longer an option.

Here is the paper to prove it:

J. Martin; S. Ilani; B. Verdene; J. Smet; V. Umansky; D. Mahalu; D. Schuh; G. Abstreiter; A. Yacoby (2004). "Localization of Fractionally Charged Quasi Particles".

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15310895/

An outstanding question pertaining to the microscopic properties of the fractional quantum Hall effect is understanding the nature of the particles that participate in the localization but that do not contribute to electronic transport. By using a scanning single electron transistor, we imaged the individual localized states in the fractional quantum Hall regime and determined the charge of the localizing particles. Highlighting the symmetry between filling factors 1/3 and 2/3, our measurements show that quasi-particles with fractional charge e* = e/3 localize in space to submicrometer dimensions, where e is the electron charge.

http://yacoby.physics.harvard.edu/Publications/Localization%20of%20Fractionally%20Charged%20Quasi%20Particles_2004.pdf

Our results constitute direct evidence that quasi-particles with charge e/3 localize at
1/3 and 2/3. Moreover, our results highlight the symmetry between filling factors 1/3 and 2/3, indicating directly that at 2/3 the quasiparticle charge is e/3.

One can clearly see that the step height in the fractional regime is only about 1/3
of the step height in the integer regime, confirming the localization of quasi-particles with e* e/3 for both 1/3 and 2/3.


"Quasiparticle, in physics, a disturbance, in a medium, that behaves as a particle and that may conveniently be regarded as one. "

"This "electron with a different mass" is called an "electron quasiparticle"."


It is much easier to access the preons in an electron, than it would be to try the same thing using quarks (protons).

*

Stash

  • Ethical Stash
  • 13398
  • I am car!
Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
« Reply #201 on: July 07, 2020, 12:19:38 AM »
Saying that they do not exist is no longer an option.

Here is the paper to prove it:

J. Martin; S. Ilani; B. Verdene; J. Smet; V. Umansky; D. Mahalu; D. Schuh; G. Abstreiter; A. Yacoby (2004). "Localization of Fractionally Charged Quasi Particles".

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15310895/

An outstanding question pertaining to the microscopic properties of the fractional quantum Hall effect is understanding the nature of the particles that participate in the localization but that do not contribute to electronic transport. By using a scanning single electron transistor, we imaged the individual localized states in the fractional quantum Hall regime and determined the charge of the localizing particles. Highlighting the symmetry between filling factors 1/3 and 2/3, our measurements show that quasi-particles with fractional charge e* = e/3 localize in space to submicrometer dimensions, where e is the electron charge.

http://yacoby.physics.harvard.edu/Publications/Localization%20of%20Fractionally%20Charged%20Quasi%20Particles_2004.pdf

Our results constitute direct evidence that quasi-particles with charge e/3 localize at
1/3 and 2/3. Moreover, our results highlight the symmetry between filling factors 1/3 and 2/3, indicating directly that at 2/3 the quasiparticle charge is e/3.

One can clearly see that the step height in the fractional regime is only about 1/3
of the step height in the integer regime, confirming the localization of quasi-particles with e* e/3 for both 1/3 and 2/3.


"Quasiparticle, in physics, a disturbance, in a medium, that behaves as a particle and that may conveniently be regarded as one. "

"This "electron with a different mass" is called an "electron quasiparticle"."


It is much easier to access the preons in an electron, than it would be to try the same thing using quarks (protons).

Again, the only current option; hypothetical, theoretical, construct, model. None of your papers claim other than theory. Not proven to exist. Simple as that.



Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
« Reply #202 on: July 07, 2020, 12:21:13 AM »
Didn't somebody claim preons aren't real?

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 7049
Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
« Reply #203 on: July 07, 2020, 12:21:58 AM »
The list from wikipedia is wrong.

It must be updated in view of the referenced paper.

No doubt about it: preons have been discovered.

*

Timeisup

  • 3554
  • You still think that. You cannot be serious ?
Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
« Reply #204 on: July 07, 2020, 12:25:07 AM »
This thread gives a clear example of how the facts mean little or nothing to some people. These people would, for reasons known only to themselves, prefer to ignore the facts and make up their own.

It is crystal clear that subquarks have NEVER been discovered by any subatomic experiment. A look at what subatomic particles have been discovered will confirm that. (Fact)

A simple subquark search will reveal many speculative papers about them from the 1980s, but NONE will detail their discovery. (Fact)

Sandokhan stated they had been discovered at Fermilab in 1997 this was of course a lie and false. No discovery of subquarks has ever been made at Fermilab. (Fact)

CERN provides a picture of our current understanding of the subatomic world or standard model and it does not include subquarks.
https://home.cern/science/physics/standard-model

If Sandokhan is going to invoke science he should at least get his basic facts right rather than, as he constantly appears to do, is make his own up.

Subquarks have NEVER been discovered, and that is a fact.
Really…..what a laugh!!!

Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
« Reply #205 on: July 07, 2020, 12:28:05 AM »
The list from wikipedia is wrong.

It must be updated in view of the referenced paper.

No doubt about it: preons have been discovered.

Preons are in list

*

Timeisup

  • 3554
  • You still think that. You cannot be serious ?
Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
« Reply #206 on: July 07, 2020, 12:30:37 AM »
The list from wikipedia is wrong.

It must be updated in view of the referenced paper.

No doubt about it: preons have been discovered.

Why do you keep lying and ignoring the facts. That is the real question at hand.
Subquarks were never discovered at Fermilab in 1997. Why did you tell such an outrageous lie as it’s so easy to check?

Why do you continue to tell lie after lie when the true facts are obvious to everyone? Subquarks were a belief back in the 1980s, read any of the papers! They were never discovered.....it was all speculation.

You have clearly demonstrated that you cant understand scientific papers, tell fact from fiction or more sadly tell the truth.
Really…..what a laugh!!!

*

Stash

  • Ethical Stash
  • 13398
  • I am car!
Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
« Reply #207 on: July 07, 2020, 12:31:10 AM »
The list from wikipedia is wrong.

It must be updated in view of the referenced paper.

No doubt about it: preons have been discovered.

Preons are in list

Yes, under "hypothetical".

*

Timeisup

  • 3554
  • You still think that. You cannot be serious ?
Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
« Reply #208 on: July 07, 2020, 12:32:17 AM »
The list from wikipedia is wrong.

It must be updated in view of the referenced paper.

No doubt about it: preons have been discovered.

You are WRONG again preons have NEVER been discovered. Stop misrepresenting science.
Really…..what a laugh!!!

*

Stash

  • Ethical Stash
  • 13398
  • I am car!
Re: Pretending Subquarks actually exist!
« Reply #209 on: July 07, 2020, 12:33:41 AM »
The list from wikipedia is wrong.

It must be updated in view of the referenced paper.

No doubt about it: preons have been discovered.

No doubt about it, no one has even remotely claimed that. But hey, anyone can update wikipedia. Go for it.