|
|
|
Main Menu
|
|
Sections
Meta
Talkback
Downloads
Information
|
|
|
|
|
![[parent]](https://images.physicslibrary.org/images/uparrow.png) Viewing Message
|
|
|
| ``Re: Definition of "Fundamental particles"''
by bloftin on 2007-04-16 15:26:41 |
|
| > I have always been puzzled by the concept "fundamental
> particle".
> What is the existing framework for the theory of
> "fundamental particle"
The theoretical framework is somewhat disappointingly just called, "The Standard Model" :) A good introduction without mathematics is
http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A666173
>and why it can explain quarks and
> electrons are "fundamental"?
I'm not 'positive', but that might be like asking why are these the fundamental forces (strong,em,gravity, etc), this is what we currently observe and you will have to look to other theories like string theory (but no experimental evidence yet)
>Does "quark confinement" means
> the energy barrier to break up a proton is higher than the
> energy can be priovided by the universe and so we say that
> "quark could not be more fundamental as it could possibly be
> detected by our universe"?
not sure but it does have something to do with not being able to isolate a quark
I think the decay rate was calculated for the proton as 10^35 years, but this is not in the standard model and has not been experimentally verified yet, but definitely a research topic.
In the end I think the standard model just takes them as fundamental particles and works from there (let me know if this is wrong).
Another link that might help,
http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/57/31/1946278.pdf
Ben
|
| | [ reply | up | top ] | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
