[puppypower (OP)]

If you look at the proton, as an example, this composite particle can last for billions of years. The proton is composed of subunits called quarks. If we release the quarks from a proton, the released quarks do not last as very long; less than a fraction of a second. But if the quarks remain contained in the proton they can last as long as the proton.  Why do quarks drastically lose life expectancy, if they leave the composites they occupy?

If we go the other way, atoms are made up of protons, electrons and neutrons. If we separate atoms into their components, only the neutrons will show a shorter life expectancy outside the atom composite; neutron decay. The proton and electron continue to exist for billions of years; longer than atoms. If we release the quarks from the proton, all their life expectancies become very brief. Why?

 t would be like building a stone wall with field stones. If we knock out any stone from the composite wall, that stone will disappear almost immediately. If we could add it back before it disappears, it can last for centuries in the walls or until the wall falls.

Years ago, I pondered this question, and would like to present two possible explanations. The first  explanation is connected to time dilation. Protons were formed at a time when the universe was denser, and had higher gravity and average GR affects. The quarks existed then and had the same life brief expectancy as they do now. However, at that time they were highly time dilated due to GR, when they formed the proton. This time dilation was retained inside the composite. Once you break the composite, the time dilation is lost, and their clocks speed up.

Another explanation is that the energy that particle colliders add, to split a proton, adds energy to the quarks and alters their phase, such that what we see are not the same quarks states as in a low energy protons. At the very least, we add relativistic mass and EM energy, due to high velocity in magnetic fields, which then adds something to the composite not found in protons at ambient conditions. We end up with unstable sub particles.

[Petrochemicals]

Have you got any info on this please?

[Jolly2]

If you look at the proton, as an example, this composite particle can last for billions of years. The proton is composed of subunits called quarks. If we release the quarks from a proton, the released quarks do not last as very long; less than a fraction of a second. But if the quarks remain contained in the proton they can last as long as the proton.  Why do quarks drastically lose life expectancy, if they leave the composites they occupy?

Clearly gluons stabilise them. How they do that is a huge question and as far as I am aware unanswered.

If we go the other way, atoms are made up of protons, electrons and neutrons. If we separate atoms into their components, only the neutrons will show a shorter life expectancy outside the atom composite; neutron decay. The proton and electron continue to exist for billions of years; longer than atoms. If we release the quarks from the proton, all their life expectancies become very brief. Why?

Not sure they simply disappear, there energy no doubt disperses. 

t would be like building a stone wall with field stones. If we knock out any stone from the composite wall, that stone will disappear almost immediately.

No it rests on the floor. A stone isnt a good analogy for proton.

If we could add it back before it disappears, it can last for centuries in the walls or until the wall falls.

Years ago, I pondered this question, and would like to present two possible explanations. The first  explanation is connected to time dilation. Protons were formed at a time when the universe was denser, and had higher gravity and average GR affects. The quarks existed then and had the same life brief expectancy as they do now. However, at that time they were highly time dilated due to GR, when they formed the proton. This time dilation was retained inside the composite. Once you break the composite, the time dilation is lost, and their clocks speed up.

Another explanation is that the energy that particle colliders add, to split a proton, adds energy to the quarks and alters their phase, such that what we see are not the same quarks states as in a low energy protons. At the very least, we add relativistic mass and EM energy, due to high velocity in magnetic fields, which then adds something to the composite not found in protons at ambient conditions. We end up with unstable sub particles.

Like looking at elections under a microscope you effect them by looking,  not sure if its clear what effects we have in that regard.

[puppypower (OP)]

I thought it very strange that the substructure of matter; quarks, when released from the larger composites of matter; i.e., proton, do not last as long, once removed from the composite. A loose  analogy would occur if stonewalls behaved the same way. In this case, each time you removed a stone from the wall, that stone would immediately disappear. One may be able to get a trace of its disappearance on a photographic slide. The stones that are left as part of the wall, would remain for centuries. This is not normal, therefore I wondered how could one explain this time anomaly, at the lowest levels of matter?

One thing that came to my mind was time dilation. Hydrogen and helium formed very early in the universe. The quarks, that previously created the proton, for example, would have been integrated into the proton at a time, when the universe was much denser, with much higher GR. The sub particles would have been more time dilated during fabrication. 

If they somehow retained this time dilation, in situ, they would appear to exist for eons when inside any composite. On the other hand, if we break the composite, such as in particles colliders, the life expectancy does not change; same all references.  However, the loss of time dilation would make its life expectancy appear to become much less in our reference.

An analogy found in factories is hot pressing metallic powders into parts. The heat and pressure will push the metallic atoms into specific arrangements, that add strength and other desirable characteristics. These arrangement get frozen into the metallic part, even when the pressure and temperature is removed. If we add energy, such as heat, this can weaken these originally induced structures, and cause a reversal.

[Hayseed]

Imagine breaking a pane of glass.   Then your instructor tells you that the fragments of that breakage, can not be called glass, because now, the fragments weight differently and have a different size and shape, than the whole pane.

And since the fragments weight differently, the fragments are different materials than the original pane.  So, each fragment gets a new name.

This is what Cern does.   Complete waste of time.

[puppypower (OP)]

Imagine breaking a pane of glass.   Then your instructor tells you that the fragments of that breakage, can not be called glass, because now, the fragments weight differently and have a different size and shape, than the whole pane.

And since the fragments weight differently, the fragments are different materials than the original pane.  So, each fragment gets a new name.

This is what Cern does.   Complete waste of time.

If the particles composites, in an accelerator, are accelerated to near the speed of light, we would have added relativistic mass at the very least. We will also add EM force and energy. The original particle composite, upon collusion, will be the original particle composites, plus relativistic mass and EM induction. This may add a quark or two that may only exist under these unique lab conditions. This intermediate and unstable state could explain the short life. 

The properties of materials within nature show both a temperature and pressure dependency. For example, water is a liquid at STD; ambient conditions, but will become a metal at temperatures and pressures similar to the earth's core. Metallic water requires a different type of analysis than liquid water; metal versus covalent material. The composite changes phase, which alters the internal properties.

Or we can go the other way and make new water molecules via the combustion of oxygen and hydrogen gases. At these hot conditions, the substructures of the forming water molecules appear as various radicals; ionized fragments. This substructure does not apply to metallic water or even liquid water, since the latter are metallic and ionic but not radicals. I used to be a materials specialist and phase diagrams are the way of nature.

Are quarks the fundamental sub structure of matter, or are they simply the substructure of matter at certain phase conditions? If this case, like the combustion of hydrogen and oxygen, we use experimental conditions that will generate unstable intermediate states that do no apply under cooler conditions, since ambient protons do not decompose into these same particles.

In my opinion, the phase diagrams of matter and quarks are not one line. Rather they are a diagram based on various conditions in temperature and pressure. Particles accelerators cannot run extreme pressure conditions, generated by gravity, as a background pressure. In the case of radicals and combustion water vapor, extreme pressure would alter the radical substructure so what we think we should see, would not appear.

Below is a generic phase diagram. Collider data appears to be isobar on a larger phase diagram. More work needs to be done to fill the rest of the diagram, before we can assume the substructure of one phase, is the same for all phases. 

[Kryptid]

Imagine breaking a pane of glass.   Then your instructor tells you that the fragments of that breakage, can not be called glass, because now, the fragments weight differently and have a different size and shape, than the whole pane.

And since the fragments weight differently, the fragments are different materials than the original pane.  So, each fragment gets a new name.

This is what Cern does.   Complete waste of time.

That is not what CERN does. If it was, then you'd expect no two particles produced in a collision to be alike, since no two glass shards are alike. You'd expect an endless variety of particles as no two collisions would be exactly the same. Yet that's not what we see. Specific particles with specific properties are observed repeatedly.

[Hayseed]

When a charge is stimulated, the first thing the charge does, is to align up with the stimulation.  This can happen very quickly, because to line up, all it has to do, is tilt.  Actually 2 tilts at the same time.  When it lines up, it presents a perpendicular target area for interaction.  This target area is important.  If the target area decreases, it will require a denser stimuli, to reach the same velocity.

Unlike a cue ball, when you hit a charge, the charge lines up, and as the charge starts to accelerate.....a portion of the stimuli, when be spent, rotating the charge faster, instead of accelerating the charge as a cue ball.  Only a portion of the kinetic energy imparted, goes to kinetic energy of the target, the rest goes to increasing the spin.  The portions are determined by the rate of the stimuli and the duration of the stimuli.  This spin contraction makes the particle denser, which gives you your mass gain.  If you don't believe the target area concept, then believe the mass gain with density, and the more power required to move it.

And I hate to repeat myself, but you are again, trying to understand a dynamic........with a flux.  Your result are averages.  If you charge up, and contract down, electrons to the same energy levels and collide them, you will get 3 inverted quark fragments. Try it.

The "particles" you get, depend on energy states and angle, at time of collision.  They have two energy states, kinetic and rotational. And they each have two angles.  If you want more particles, turn up the juice, just as you have been doing.

Glass was just an example of the fragment concept, not the mechanics of it.  All the your fragments dissolve quickly.   They are useless.  Glass fragments have more use.

Only two stable particles are needed for all matter.  And all fields.

Can we ever know what this charge substance is?  No, we can not.  For it is the only physical thing that is.  Everything there is, is combinations of charge.   We have nothing to compare it too.   Except, itself.  And we truly have not done that yet.

We can NOT even size an electron.  Because......the only way to size it.......is to strobe it.  Modern science believes that because the proton is more massive, that it is larger than an electron.  I, on the other hand believe the electron is much larger than the proton.  I hope I get to see one painted.

[Kryptid]

Modern science believes that because the proton is more massive, that it is larger than an electron.

Please supply a source for this claim. Last I checked, the proton is larger than the electron because it is a composite particle, not because it is more massive. Even consideing the proton to be larger than the electron depends upon how you define a particle's size.

If you charge up, and contract down, electrons to the same energy levels and collide them, you will get 3 inverted quark fragments.

What is an "inverted quark fragment"?

Everything there is, is combinations of charge.

What about neutrinos? The Z boson? The Higgs boson? Gravity? Photons?

[puppypower (OP)]

If we do an energy balance, for the quarks that appear at the end in accelerators, that make up a proton for example, and compare this to starting ambient protons, the quarks contain extra energy. Particle accelerators add energy to the starting materials, to create a new phase. Quarks contain proton parts plus added energy.

This situation is not much different from the impact of gravity on earth. Gravity on earth adds various amounts of pressure and temperature to water, to form several new phases that are not common on the surface. These include super critical water in the crust,  super ionic and ionic phases in the mantle, and metallic water in the core of the earth.

This metallic water phase does not exist anywhere else on earth, except where sufficient energy has been added, since lots of energy and pressure is needed to induce and sustain that phase. Labs use a conventional explosives to generate this heat and pressure needed to make metallic water on the surface, However, it will quickly disappear since we cannot sustain phase conditions after the pulse induction. Any phase that is out of its parameters will not last but will need to alter its nature to form the required phase for those new conditions.

If somehow we could collect a beaker of metallic water, bring it to the surface of the earth, and then drop the temperature and pressure in the lab, it would disappear almost immediately. Its life expectancy is not the same in other places on the phase diagram. If you wanted it to last, we would need a way to maintain the original conditions. Particle colliders add energy and then abruptly alter the conditions at the end of the experiment. This will alter the phase equilibria, such that the induced phase quickly disappears.