/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.5709620]

Next year will be the 50th anniversary of the quark. It will be 50 years since the quark model was independently proposed by physicists Murray Gell-Mann and George Zweig.

How is /sci/ celebrating? This has discovery made such a fundamental change to our society. All of our live are have improved so drastically.

[Anonymous No.5709626]

How to celebrate this Prometheus? He is a God among men. Our debt to him can never be repaid.

[Anonymous No.5709630]

I can't live without his glorious discovery. My life has been saved countless times by quarks. In fact, I don't want to live in a world without an intimate knowledge of quarks.

[Anonymous No.5709633]

pls. don't feed the trolls

[Anonymous No.5709635]

>>5709633

OMG! one of you tards noticed my sarcasm. I was wonder how long it would take /sci/ to notice.

[Anonymous No.5709639]

it takes time before discovery leads to useful applications. Anyone with any concept of science should know that

[Anonymous No.5709643]

I had no idea this delicious food was only 50yrs old

[Anonymous No.5709644]

>>5709639

It's been 50 fucking years! you don't think that is long enough? When will anything come of this, centuries? Who even fucking knows what a quark is?

[Anonymous No.5709645]

>>5709620
electricity was known about for millenia before useful applications were discovered

as ever, OP is a faggot

[Anonymous No.5709654]

>>5709645

actually, just as soon as the magnet was discovered it was used in a compass.

And batteries were used since Mesopotamia(Baghdad Battery). This is just about as far as recorded history goes.

[Anonymous No.5709659]

>>5709645

The magnetic compass was first invented as a device for divination as early as the Chinese Han Dynasty (Since about 206 BC )


Read, "as early as" meaning it could have been used before, but there is no record.

[Anonymous No.5709668]

>>5709659

[PEOFLE PLAYERD HON BPALECK THEN?

[Anonymous No.5709670]

>>5709659
>>5709654
Saying a using a lodestone is an application of electricity is like saying the H-bomb is an application of quarks.

Kinda true, but kinda not.

[Anonymous No.5709680]

>>5709670

I think you are confused. nuclear bombs are about splitting atoms not sub atomic particles. Quarks are not relevant to the operation of an H-bomb.

[Anonymous No.5709699]

What would you expect to come from this? It's a model in fundamental physics, why does it need applications?

[Anonymous No.5709704]

>>5709680
>nucleons are not made of quarks
>the strong force, and so the binding enerygy released, is not mediated by gluons acting upon quarks

derp

But my point is that an understanding of quarks is not necessary to build an H bomb, just like an understanding of electricity is not necessary to use a lodestone.

[Anonymous No.5709706]

>>5709680
The residual strong force at work in fusion is a result of quark interactions. Quarks are very much relevant.

[Anonymous No.5709763]

>>5709706

you're stretching it. I could also say boiling water is an application of electricity since atoms get excited and atoms are made of electrons, but its asinine. There is no reason to include quarks in a discussion about a nuclear bomb, because a nuclear bomb is a nuclear reaction, while a quark is a subatomic particle. Also nuclear bombs were developed before the discovery of the quark, further supporting my insistence that they are irrelevant. Has the discovery of the quark lead to better nuclear bombs?

[Anonymous No.5709778]

>>5709620
>This has discovery made such a fundamental change to our society. All of our live are have improved so drastically.

[Anonymous No.5709923]

>>5709704
its not... its mediated by pions...

[Anonymous No.5710168]

>>5709763
omfg so much
>i read Brian Greene so I'm an expert so physiucs

hes talking about fusion, derpo. not fission.

[Anonymous No.5710176]

>>5709923
which are made of quarks and interact using gluons

[Anonymous No.5710191]

>>5710168

well, I assumed fission because fission is useful. And this is a discussion about usefulness.

>>5710176
doesn't really matter because nuclear interactions are not relevant in a discussion about subatomic particles. Quarks remain useless.

[Anonymous No.5710201]

>>5710191

Fuck you, pleb. Fusion is so useful.

Pic related

[Anonymous No.5710208]

>>5710191
I mentioned H bomb. Fusion.

And my analogy pointed out that the connection was tenuous. No one knows how to read on this site.

claiming lodestone = understanding of electricty is same as claiming H-bomb = understanding of quark theory. ie tenuous.

>>5710201
Fusion is useful, as the nuclear deterrent kept the peace for 50 yrs after WW2

[Anonymous No.5710218]

>>5710191
>doesn't really matter because nuclear interactions are not relevant in a discussion about subatomic particles. Quarks remain useless.

nuclear (as in nucleus of an atom) is almost synonymous with subatomic, as we are beneath the level of whole atoms, ie chemical reactions.

quark model (these are all just models) can be used to understand nuclear fusion and fission. though simpler models are the norm.

[Anonymous No.5710359]

>>5710208

your reading comprehension is hit too. I didn't claim using loadstones indicated an understanding of electricity.

>>5709645
This poster claimed it took thousands of years after the discovery of electricity for a useful application to appear.

I claimed that is false, since there were applications for electricity before it was understood. I gave two examples.

[Anonymous No.5710383]

>>5710359
>I didn't claim using loadstones indicated an understanding of electricity.

exactly. just as i don't claim h-bombs indicate an understanding of the quarks

that's why the two are comparable, and it's this comparison you, or someone, seems to fail to get.

[Anonymous No.5710396]

Humans evolved a knack for recognizing patterns in nature and a keenness for understanding root causes so that they may predict seasons, tides, floods, migration patterns, animal behavior and such. This curiosity allowed humans to dominate all other forms of life around it, build complex civilizations and achieve wondrous feats of engineering.

If this was a 100,000 ago, you would have been masturbating in the corner while better men than you bashed rocks together to make fire.

[Anonymous No.5710397]

>>5710383

but who would say that an H-bomb is an application of quarkicity? It seems to me an H-bomb is an application of the properties of the nucleus of an atom.

To me the compass shows an application before rigorous understanding, and an H-bomb and a quark have nothing in common.

[Anonymous No.5710407]

>>5710397
the nucleus of the atom is made of quarks, the properties of the atomic nucleus *are* the aggregate properties of quarks

just as magnets are "made of" an aggregation of electric currents

[Anonymous No.5710437]

>>5710407

lets say for a second that the proton and the neutron were not made of smaller particles. Would nuclear phenomena still exist? The nucleus is made of protons and neutrons, BTW not quarks.

[Anonymous No.5710451]

>>5709620
>>How is /sci/ celebrating?
By running around shouting "Three quarks for Muster Mark!", as loud as humanely possible.

[Anonymous No.5710459]

>>5710437
>let's say for a second that magnetism was not due to electric current

[Anonymous No.5710466]

>>5710437
How can anyone possibly answer that. What are they made of in your world? Cheese?

Magnets, how do they work?

[Anonymous No.5710485]

>>5710459
>>5710466

Well, lets say that one day we find the electron is composed of smaller particles. Does that mean the electron isn't responsible for electric and magnetic phenomena?

This is your line of reasoning. It's like I say a car can drive across the country. Then you say no it's the tires that do. Then I say no its the entire fucking car retard. Then you insist that no it's all the tiny components of the car that actually allow a person to drive. But it's my line or reasoning that the entire complete object itself is what allows a person to drive.

So is it a car that drives across the country or is it the steering wheel?

Is it the protons and how they are arranged into a nucleus that are responsible for nuclear phenomena or is it how the quarks compose a proton?

Nuclear phenomena was understood and agreed upon, and there was no mystery before the discovery of the quark.

[Anonymous No.5710493]

>>5710485
Not at all. Your problem is you have one line of reasoning for the lodestone, and another for the hydrogen bomb.

Both are valid, and I'll take either, but you have to be consistent.

[Anonymous No.5710496]

>>5710485
>Nuclear phenomena was understood and agreed upon, and there was no mystery before the discovery of the quark.

This is utter nonsense.

[Anonymous No.5710502]

>>5710493

Explain to me what my reasoning for the lodestone is? I just say there are applications of magnetism before there are rigorous explanations for magnetism. In my mind I make no correlation between these two different discussions.

[Anonymous No.5710505]

>>5710496

What was the big mystery behind fission or fusion that the discovery of the quark solved?

[Anonymous No.5710507]

>>5710485
so you are saying electricity doesn't cause magnetism? and quarks don't cause nuclear forces?

(by the way, i've never seen someone squeal quite so much)

[Anonymous No.5710515]

>>5710507

I'm not having a discussion about what causes magnetism. I am merely pointing out that applications existed, before anyone had a rigorous explanation for magnetism.

Quarks are not responsible for nuclear phenomena. Nuclear phenomena are products of how protons and neutron are arranged into atoms.

[Anonymous No.5710518]

>>5710505
Well, how about why nucleons had the masses and charges they did? To name one of a hundred "mysteries".

But you are missing the point. Again. Just as magnets could be to some extent be understood without knowledge of electricity. H-bombs can, to some extent be understood without knowledge of quarks. That is why they are analogous situations.

You know this and are just being stubborn as you didn't quite get it earlier, so feel the need to argue on.

[Anonymous No.5710528]

>>5710502
No, you said applications of electricity.

crudely: electricity is to magnetism, as quarks are to nuclear phenomena; an explanation, though not something necessary to application and limited understanding

[Anonymous No.5710529]

>>5710515
>Quarks are not responsible for nuclear phenomena
Um, you are seriously ill-educated. Suggest you read up on the standard model.

[Anonymous No.5710534]

>>5710518

I don't think this discussion is going anywhere. The discovery of the quark doesn't revel anything interesting about charge. In fact the quark is said to have its own charge, and no real explanation is given. No deeper understanding of charge is gained. The quark didn't solve the mystery of "what is charge?"

[Anonymous No.5710539]

>>5710529

I have a masters degree of science in Electrical Engineer from the University of California. I did research in material science, specifically thin film fabrication, while I had a fellowship and was in the Ph.d program.

What are your credentials?

[Anonymous No.5710543]

>>5710528

you are confusing objects with properties of objects.

[Anonymous No.5711019]

>>5709620
My friend Mark and I will be sharing 3 quarts of beer to celebrate.

Also he and his wife had a new baby. It's fucking useless, as all new babies are.

[Anonymous No.5711273]

>>5710539

I did an introductory course on particle physics and they clearly explain the strong force is caused by interactions between quarks. This is how nuclei stay together. How can you say they're not involved in any nuclear phenomena when protons and neutrons are just groups of quarks?

[Anonymous No.5711334]

>>5710539
It's not hard to understand. Two up quarks and a down quark is called a "proton". The force that holds protons and neutrons together (the nuclear force) can't be accurately described without quarks, anti-quarks, the colour charge of quarks and pi mesons.

[Anonymous No.5711363]

The quark model has allowed us to better understand the strong interaction, which is important for nuclear physics including fission, fusion, NMR, and a number of gamma ray sources. It also makes the weak interaction actually make sense and have a number of calculable results instead of just being a bizarre parametrized set of interactions, which allows us to understand beta decay and weak neutron interactions.

Overall, the quark model is primarily useful as a way of linking together the huge variety of hadrons we see, which previously were thought of as simply an enormous zoo of unique particles. Because of this, we have a general utility for examining any and all interactions between particles, which is instrumental for better understanding the strong and weak forces and precisely what they do to matter.

[Anonymous No.5711481]

>>5709620
>How is /sci/ celebrating?
Alone.

[Anonymous No.5711490]

>>5710539
Why would you flaunt shitty credentials in a context where they're clearly irrelevant? It's like saying you're a plumber during a debate on evolution.

[Anonymous No.5711493]

>not doing research in particle chemistry
>not knowing about NV cavities in diamond lattices allowing for fine-tuned spin control
>not reacting regular nuclei under spin-influencing conditions to spontaneously reproduce isotopes of different elements

Think about this for a second here, you king among plebs: the entire architecture of modern chemistry deals with the interaction and reactivity of a whopping one out of three components of an atom. Elementary chemistry is soon to be the realization of a 500 year history of alchemy, because you better believe I'm gonna turn a hunk of doodoo lead into a fat gold bouillon just as soon as I can convert neutrons into protons and visa versa.

[Anonymous No.5711494]

>>5710539

>the University of California

lol berkeley fag

come back when you have a degree from a real public institution for the physical sciences, like ucsb

[Anonymous No.5711608]

>>5711494
>argumentum ad auctoritatem
>Read: CAN I INTO ARGUING?

[Anonymous No.5713118]

Wasn't "quarks" what they called the short robots in doctor who "the dominators" episode? I enjoyed that.

[Anonymous No.5713170]

>>5710539
> was in the Ph.d program
lol

[Anonymous No.5713177]

You are rigth, OP. You should send a letter to all the universities in the world demanding them to stop fundamental investigation and just focus on the aplications. You will be a hero to humanity

[Anonymous No.5713182]

Who gives a fuck about aplications? Only plebs like engineers who doesen't really understand anything