There is conjecture out there that purport quarks move no slower than c and up to c^2 in free state. Could this explain in part why a free quark has never been observed? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quark and also the apparent "instantaneous" action of entanglement, i.e. at a velocity of c^2, the behavior would appear instantaneous to us. E=mc^2 is probably not a coincidence! Once "unified field" theory is understood and experimentally replicated, perhaps E-M fields energized at appropriate frequencies, power levels, motions and geometry (i.e. high speed rotation resulting in near c or >c tangential velocities about an axis or toroidal form) may result in manipulation/generation of gravitation/gravitons (and hence space-time) at MUCH lower energies, through manipulation and engineering of "vibrational modes" of space-time (and/or the quantum vacuum/field) analogous to vibration modes observed in mechanical and acoustic systems. Think excitation of quantum-scale field(s) natural frequency(s), inducing specific modes as needed, through appropriate inputs of E-M field frequency, amplitude, power level, timing (phase), motion and geometry. Specific wavefunction modes = specific subatomic particles. Could the EMdrive be demonstrating a form of this effect? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RF_res...avity_thruster https://www.sciencealert.com/leaked-...ally-does-work Lots of formal and grassroots experimenting ongoing https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/in...?topic=42978.0 Plus, 3000+ years of anecdotal reports suggest FTL/gravity control are possbile (This IS a SciFi forum ) (...and I suspect a transporter-like, stargate/wormhole-like, and FTL capable devices would be functional in a black project capacity long before the public is aware/public accessibility) BTW, c^2 is MUCH, MUCH faster than warp drive, SW's hyperdrive and Trek's "subspace" communications...
Nope - c^2 doesn't have the correct units for velocity. Its units are metres squared per second squared. Quarks don't appear to move at c - the Higgs Field imbues them with mass as it switches them between zig and zag states - as is the case for other hadrons and leptons. Of course, all such particles and you are actually moving at the speed of light - if at rest relative to you, you and they are moving at one second per second through time. If moving relative, they appear to move more slowly through time.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon_structure_function "The photon structure function, in quantum field theory, describes the quark content of the photon. " Sounds like quarks *can* move at c if they are component(s) of a photon.
That's saying photons can be converted to fermions, restating E=mc squared. Quarks don't pair into photons. The language of the article is misleading.
In my years of studying particle and QM physics in an armchair capacity, I have found this all too common in particle physics and QM in particular, i.e. confusing and contradictory language and terminology among practitioners, article authors and even published papers, and self-referential, apparent circular reasoning . Or not (this is Quantum Mechanics )
If I recall correctly, the claim is the magnitude is squared, not the units, i.e. the speed of light = 299 792 458 m / s Top speed of quark = (299 ,792, 458)^2 = 89875517873681764 m/s I made the association with E=mc^2
One description of matter I've heard, i.e. protons, neutrons (comprised of quarks), you, me, is "frozen light"
Well, the claim is wrong as the SI unit of energy E is the joule = kg m^2 s^-2. (Other combinations of units are possible, such as energy measured in electron volts eV.) However, energy traditionally has the units of force times distance. The SI unit of force is the newton or kg m s^-2.
Yep, thanks to the Higgs field. It might not be the ultimate correct theory but it's been good enough for 50 years or so. In a way, the Higgs also allows matter to exist and interact and us to experience time and space.
Quantum Mechanics is not up to the task of dealing with Special Relativity or massless particles - for that, one needs Quantum Field Theory (QFT).
More a scalar field and excitations of that field. It's just a theory that seems to fit as I say. I'm looking forward to seeing what new paradigms such as the amplituhedron throw up. We have no idea why fundamental particles have the masses that they do. The standard model is full of empirically determined parameters. It might be that multiverses exist with all possible combinations of parameter values, which would be kind of a disappointment as there would be nothing to explain. Perhaps, though, everything existing that is possible is just the way things are.
If you meant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tachyon then you agree with the conjecture, assuming tachyons are composed of quarks
Interesting that mainstream physics is coming around to the scalr field idea http://scalarphysics.com/ Used to be fringe "Science" http://www.lifeenergysolutions.com/scalar-waves/
Mainstream physics has never had any problem with accepting scalar fields. But fringe science is still that no matter how it might invoke results such as superluminal neutrinos, which have been discredited.
The idea behind the (up to) c^2 quark free state velocity is that at quantum scales, you enter the next "energy band" of reality. A (poor) analogy might be the electron shells around high atomic number atoms, or radio (AM/FM), visual, and microwave RF bands. We exist at energy band 1 (EB1, proton/electron scale on up), quark scale is energy band 2, and perhaps more bands as you drill down to planck length (or smaller). Quark free state (apparent EB1) speed could be the result of the extra spatial dimensions posited at those scales, among other factors. https://arxiv.org/abs/1611.01026 http://ctp.berkeley.edu/extraD.html https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaluza–Klein_theory#Kaluza_hypothesis