« GRITZ Home | Email msg. | Reply to msg. | Post new | Board info. Previous | Home | Next

I was a little confused earlier, but it's beginning to make sense now. 

By: De_Composed in GRITZ | Recommend this post (1)
Sat, 04 Jan 25 6:22 AM | 21 view(s)
Boardmark this board | Grits Breakfast of Champeens!
Msg. 02100 of 02395
Jump:
Jump to board:
Jump to msg. #

Great stuff!

In 1965, Nambu and Han muddied the waters somewhat by elaborating their model to include more triplets of quarks in an effort to remove the need for fractional charges, but since few people were taking the idea of quarks very seriously at the time, none of this work caused much of a stir. But the idea did offer new guidelines for the behavior of quarks, including the resolution of the puzzle of why they came only in threes (as baryons) or in pairs (as mesons). Just by specifying a single rule that the only "allowed" combinations of quarks must be colorless, Nambu was able to explain the division of hadrons into these two families. Each meson, he said, must be composed of a quark of some particular color and an antiquark of any variety but carrying the equivalent anticolor. A red up, for instance, might pair up with an antired up, or an antired down, or an antired strange; in each case the color and the anticolor "canceled out" in a mathematical sense. The other way to achieve a neutral state, he argued, was by mixing each of the three colors in one particle - one red quark, one green quark, and one blue quark, each of them being any of the flavors up, down, or strange. Three antiquarks of different colors would achieve the same objective. A single quark, or groups of four, for example, would carry a net color, which seemed to be forbidden.ā€¯

- John Gribbin
In Search of the Big Bang


- - - - -
View Replies (1) »



» You can also:
« GRITZ Home | Email msg. | Reply to msg. | Post new | Board info. Previous | Home | Next