4 ms·
No need to nitpick, the original comment states perfectly accurately that he was measuring the fundamental charge _of the electron_, from which the constant e i
by wholinator2 2y ago
No need to nitpick, the original comment states perfectly accurately that he was measuring the fundamental charge _of the electron_, from which the constant e is derived. We've been using e to mean _electron_ charge for a very long time. Where do you get the idea that constant has anything to do with quarks?
- db48x 2y agohttps://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/992/402/c35.gif https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/992/402/c35... But seriously, it really is time to fix all the chemistry textbooks so that the charge of the electron is +3 instead of −1.
- empyrrhicist 2y agoWhy, to make all that quark chemistry a bit easier?
- db48x 2y agoBecause electric charge is quantized, so measuring it in thirds is just dumb.
- ForOldHack 2y ago"I see a clock, but I cannot envision the clockmaker. The human mind is unable to conceive of the four dimensions, so how can it conceive of a God, before whom a thousand years and a thousand dimensions are as one?" -Albert Einstein It would have revealed a lower layer of higher understanding. No one has been able to calculate the mass of a quark: "Nobody has seriously calculated theoretically a quark mass from first principles. So there is no issue of agreement with experiment. They are parameters in experimental fits, but sometimes remarkably consistent across a broad range of experiments-- and the QCD/EW calculations using them as inputs. If someone pretends to know their origin, he/she is bluffing." But the exercise is extraordinary!