Sub2Quarks particles possible?

[pranab]

Geonium is a man made atom, created at lequid helium temperature in ultrahigh vaccum for an individual electron in magnatic and electric trapping feilds. For this atom the electron gyromagnatic ratio g=2000 000 000110(60) has been measured im microwave spectroscopy experiments after substraction of quantum electrodynamics shifts. The g-g Dirac=11x10*-11 excess over the value g Dirac=2 for the theoretical Dirac point electron suggest for the electron of nature a corrosponding excess radius Re-RDirac ovar the Dirac Radius R dirac=0 and spatial Structure. This is well Known Ok. A near Dirac particles an electron radius Re~=
10*-20 centemeter had been extraplotted. In the Big Bang Cosmology, a close to zero or zero mass particle and antiparticle is higly required as per Fremi Yang model, which indicate nothing state (zero mass) that resulted a spontanoius quantum jump in QED and actually initiated the Big Bang. and the particle antiparticle were in Spin[ Dirac point particles]. So far we Know Quark - antiquark particles as most elementary particles. Some are of view as Nutrinos particles. Quarks has at finest level has colour as energy. In 1974 Abdul Salam- A Ex Student from Calcutta university, Citizen of Pakistan by Birth, Nobel Lauratee in Physics & also others pictured the electron and found a particle on the level of quark as composed of three subquarks each 10*10 times havier than electron in Gev as the proton is composed of three spin 1/2 particles.
Is it possible to have a sub sub quarks or Sub2 quarks particles all tightly bound in the nucleon?- This particles must be the Sub X qurks, smaller & smaller, less & less imperfect near Dirac particles held together by new stronger & stronger froces and with ever increasing mass in Gev- Probably in the bigining moment (zero time) of our universe the Big Bang in one spontanious quantum jump in an individual Ba+ ion, in which metastable state decayed in to finally nucleon- anti nucleon pair. Fremi Yang idea still demands zero total relativistic energy or mass of bound pair
{ Some part taken from The Science journal}
References for further study may be considered
1) R.S Van Dyck. Jr, P Ekstrom; H. Dehmelt - Nature 262;776;1976
2) R. S. Van Dyck. Jr; P Schwinberg. H.Dhemelt - in new frontiers in High energy PHysics USA PP159-181;1978
3)Physics Rev. D34:722;1986
4)H. Dehmelt The Science 539-545;1990
5)L. Lyons Prog. Particle. Nucl. Physics 10;227;1983
6)S.J. Brodsy & S.D Drell- Physics Rev D22 2236;1980
7) w. Nagourney, J. Sanderberg; H. Dehmelt - Physics Rev. Lett 56;2797;1986
8) A. velkin Physics Rev D30; 509; 1984
Professor Dr Pranab Kr Bhattacharya
Mr. Rupak Bhattacharya
Mr. Ritwik Bhattacharya
Mrs. Dahlia Mukherjee
www. unipathos.com

[dmill1220]

HI Pranab!
I did some research on this subject but I only found references to Fermi and not Yang.
and here is what I have found, which I believe has relevance to this question. (under Substructure)
The Current theories due seem to suggest a sub quark , but it's still only theory and at present is still not verifiable.
Take a look here at this link for quarks ;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quark
, its fascinating indeed!
From what I have found in this article, they are looking! The Implications are astounding! though at least!
Some argue it can only exist in the lab! But I would say that Mother Nature, can out do us, in in both!
We seem to have a question within a question where theoretical particles are concerned, I do not find this unusual or unique in this field.
why not Sub2 quarks!
I dont have the knowledge to argue either way.
I have a sneaky suspiscion that there is alot more to find, even in the lab as far as Particle Physics are concerned, call it intuition!
Particle Physics are not my cup of tea, so to speak, and Im no expert either, but after reading and following links and references that I have posted above, you have left me with so many more questions, You have sparked my interest, and I seem to have a lot to learn.
thank you for helping to broaden my horizons!
Now you have me thinking of Gluons!
Dennis

[Blue Fire]

Oh, boy,... I can feel the quarks in my brain splitting into subquarks in a very worrisome manner. I didn't even know that folks were thinking about subquarks! It is a fascinating possibility though - guess I'll just have to get studying again. I can just Feel that Learning Curve ball coming at me hard and fast!

[dmill1220]

OMG !
This is one hell of a learning Curve!
My Brain feels like an over theorized pan of mush!
so many possibilities! I am almost overwhelmed.
I had the basics, for my engineering stamp but this is a lot to absorb, its going to take a while to sift through all the latest updated particle research , I may just go as far as I want, and skip all the rest, way to much theory for me! but im still fascinated!
OMG! Pranab! what have you done to me ? LOL!
Dennis

[Dragon Star]

You think your head hurts now?

http://www.pbase.com/pegasdvd/image/50672151

Hopefully I didn't just break the Internet.

[dmill1220]

NIce LInk!
And yet again, another Theory!
The Math doesnt bother me, its more like all of the different theories out there!
Thanks Dragon!
You have graciously added to my aching head!
LOL!
Dennis

[Blue Fire]

Originally Posted by Dragon Star

You think your head hurts now?

http://www.pbase.com/pegasdvd/image/50672151

Hopefully I didn't just break the Internet.

Darned near broke MY Internet! I'm not going there again - I cherish my sanity, and my video memory.

[dmill1220]

Hi Blue Fire!
You think thats a headache? take a look at what I just posted in the Current Theory of Cosmology!
Big time ouch! what a bungled mess!
Im so confused right now I am just going to stop thinking about all of this and just enjoy the Hobby!
Dennis