It is well known you can’t isolate a quark from a hadron because the energy needed is more than that which would produce a new pair of quarks. So as you pull a pair of quarks apart, the force needed increases because the energy you are using is going into creating more matter.

This is why the quark-quark force doesn’t obey the inverse square law. There is a pictorial discussion of this in a few books (I believe it is in “The Left Hand of Creation”, which says the heuristic explanation of why the strong nuclear force gets weaker when quark-quark distance decreases is to do with the interference between the cloud of virtual quarks and gluons surrounding each quark).

Between nucleons, neutrons and protons, the strong force is mediated by pions and simply decreases with increasing distance by the inverse-square law and an exponential term something like exp(-x/d) where x is distance and d = hc/(2.Pi.E) from the uncertainty principle.

I’m trapped in a way of seeing.

The situation in regards to strong force, run contradictory(in relation to strength) to distant measures in gravitational and electromagnetic forces. While the strong force gets weaker as the QQ distance gets shorter, the opposite was true, of the other two forces.

While I had been focused on the cosmo at large, the very beginning had to be included in the standard model. The standard model being complete picture minus gravitational force carrier(?) had to have ways in which to look at the “strength’s and weaknesses of that analogy of the membrane.”

It was just “ways” of looking at a membrane that had me puzzled, while in those abstract spaces, such concepts had to amount to something? “Gaussian coordinates” were simple, as a understanding of that field?

Layman scratching head.

On the other hand, I once had a comment on my student evaluations that I asked too many different kinds of questions, instead of repeating types of problems in order to give the students more practice. You can’t win, I tell you.

This is why quarks have asymptotic freedom: because the strong force and electromagnetic force cancel where the strong force is weak, at around the distance of separation of quarks in hadrons. That’s because of interactions with the virtual particles (fermions, quarks) and the field of gluons around quarks. If the strong nuclear force fell by the inverse square law and by an exponential quenching, then the hadrons would have no volume because the quarks would be on top of one another (the attractive nuclear force is much greater than the electromagnetic force).

Within context of the fundamental forces, understanding certain attributes, in relation to distance, makes this very interesting, when applied to the “unifying of forces” in a global perspective?

For instance, electromagetic and gravitational forces grow stronger at shorter distances, while the strong force, grows weaker. View seen in QQ distances, in regards to strong force.

So idealization about experimentation of the gravitational force, let’s say at shorter distances, becomes interesting perspective and question?

Froma geometrical standpoint Inverse square law becomes applicable.

-cvj

Science about point 2, see here.

Also it is Gerard ‘t Hooft not Gerard t’Hooft

The problem of neutral conducting rotating spheres is actually very interesting too, see here.

And congrats, clifford. I love exams that push the taker to do a new calculation and learn something new within the course of the hour. I don’t think anyone got into physics in order to be able to write down the Green’s function for a given differential equation, in and of itself.

When people complain about exams I tell them that according to Socrates, “the unexamined life is not worth living”.

-cvj

-cvj

May I ask what kind of reasoning you used, please?

1. The equator would have to go at a speed of 137c:

‘It had been an audacious idea that particles as small as electrons could have spin and, indeed, quite a lot of it. … the ‘surface of the electron’ would have to move 137 times as fast as the speed of light. Nowadays such objections are simply ignored.’ — Professor Gerard t’Hooft, In Search of the Ultimate Building Blocks, Cambridge University Press, 1997, p27.

2. The centripetal accelerative motion of charge would radiate energy (like QFT says it does if gauge bosons carry energy and are continually exchanged between charges to create electromagnetic force fields)
3. The electron is really a string in 10/11 dimensions
4. The half-integer spin of the electron means it would have to rotate 720 degrees to get back where it started (like the Moebius strip-loop with half a turn, so you trace out a single line twice the circumference, i.e. two rotations to return to the starting point)
5. The electron is really a Penrose twister of some sort
6. Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle says the electron will move when measured, so we can forget classical ideas
7. The Standard Model says the electron’s mass is due to the Higgs field, so the electron is confined electromagnetic energy

Just curious!

Cheers,

-cvj

Sorry.

-cvj