In the history of physics, quarks are definitely the most landmark particles. When physical chemists discovered the atom, they thought it was the smallest particle. However, electrons were then discovered. Then, protons and neutrons in the nucleus of the atom were discovered. Electrons belong to leptons, while protons and neutrons belong to baryons. In 1962, Gell-Mann proposed the quark model. In fact, he didn't find quarks. The scientific background of Gell-Mann's quark model is that the computer particle collider was negative, and people discovered 200 kinds of particles. Of course, this does not include quarks. How do you classify so many particles? Thus, in this way, Gell-Men was born. A few years later, experimental physicists discovered upquarks, downquarks, and odd quarks. This is the first generation of quarks. After a few more years, the quark and the bottom quark were discovered. Another twenty years later, the top quark was also discovered. At this point, the six-flavor quark was discovered. And physicists think that they are all and there will be no other quarks. And if there is any news that says that some quarks have been discovered, it is basically nonsense. Three generations of quarks, one generation heavier than the next. The top quark is 57,000 times the mass of the upper quark. Some people think that quarks are the smallest particles, but I think top quarks are heavier than any kind of neutrino. Talking about which particle is the smallest without talking about the type obviously does not stand up to logical scrutiny. If the fourth generation of quarks exists, then they must have a much greater mass than electrons and neutrinos. And, maybe even larger than baryons like protons and neutrons. However, the fourth-generation quark is just human conjecture. Physicists are negative about this. At the moment, four-quark, five-quark, and six-quark particles are just speculation. And now there are no experiments to say that Yin has discovered them, and their nature is also an unsolved mystery.

The question is that electrons and quarks are elementary particles, so why don't quarks exist separately? If quarks have to be combined with two or more, does that mean that quarks can also be divided into smaller particles? Quark confinement is talking about this phenomenon, while quark confinement is actually color confinement. Quarks are colored, and color is embodied by colored lotus. Protons are colorless because the sum of color and charge is zero. When explaining color, physicists repeatedly say that color and color are different. It is said that when quarks were discovered, quarks were basically the same in some ways. However, there are certain differences. In order to distinguish different people from quarks, particle physicists came up with the concepts of color and taste.

According to the color, top quarks can be divided into three types. Different top quarks exhibit different properties, plus quark antiparticles. Then, the number of elementary particles is a lot.

Most of the quarks that particles have are first-generation quarks, and the second- and third-generation are relatively few. The reason for this is that they are too heavy. If particles are formed, then it will be large. It may even be larger than the average molecule.

The spring breeze is still there, and the years are still there. My heart does not change, my will does not change. At the end of the road, you have to turn. At the end of the opening, it was everyone's turn to speak. Water says.

Medium, middle also. Mesons are particles that are intermediate between lepton and baryon and contain quarks. Since it is a biquark state. We know that quarks must have three due to the influence of the color lotus. However, there are only two mesons. Therefore, an antiquark is needed. However, there is an important issue here. Antiquarks are antiparticles, and quarks are positive particles. Positive and negative particles will annihilate when encountered. Since the meson can exist, it is said that the annihilation reaction did not occur. So, why? It turns out that antiparticles can only react with particles of the same kind as it. For example, an upper quark can only annihilate with an anti-upper quark, and if it is with a top quark, it will not annihilate. So two upper quarks together can annihilation? Not really. If the red quark is with the blue quark, they will not be annihilated. That is to say, as long as two quarks are positive and negative of the same taste and color. And the two quarks of the meson are not the same flavor and the same color. Because of this, mesons can be formed.

In fact, all quarks have been found. And the so-called fourth-generation quarks are pure speculation and have no theoretical basis at all. Du said.

When reading the encyclopedia, it says that gluons have both color and anti-color charges. It is the medium of quarks, through which quarks perform various functions. We know that antiparticles and positive particles can be annihilated, so what is the anti-color charge? The color charge does not have particles, so the anticolor charge is not an antiparticle either. Since it is the opposite of the color lotus, why does it not react with it. Could it be that it is the same as the anions and cations in the plasma, which can coexist? Since gluons can exist, it is said that they do not react to yin. There are two explanations for this. One is that they don't really react. The second is that there is some kind of force separating them. They react as soon as the force is gone. So, which one is possible? I'm leaning towards the second scenario. Although the first case seems more intuitive, after all, they are. However, since there is an anti-color lotus, I am afraid it is not added at random. Obviously, it has some meaning. Maybe they do react, but not as violently as the positive and negative particles. And it's not going away.

A sea quark is a tetraquark particle. As Duenias said earlier, only two positive and negative quarks of the same color and taste can be annihilated. In this way, then these four quarks must not be the same color and the same flavor at the same time. So, are they the same color or smell? According to the quark confinement or color confinement principle, a colorless quark particle needs at least three quarks that are not antiquarks. And the meson only needs a positive quark and an antiquark. The question arises: if one of the four quark particles is an antiquark, does that mean that quark confinement can be disregarded? In this way, two quarks can be the same color. Is that really the case? I don't think so. In a four-quark particle, two quarks are still not of the same color. However, there must be a positive quark that is the same color as the antiquark. In order to eliminate the effects of this phenomenon, the three quarks need to form color confinement even more. Because if there are two sets of quarks of the same color, it is likely to cause an imbalance of color charges. Therefore, I speculate that the confinement of the three of them is inevitable. Six said.

I also read the encyclopedia, which says that the baryon number of the meson is zero. I know that mesons are somewhere between lepton and baryon, not baryon. So, why is there a baryon number? It turns out that physicists came up with the concept when describing antiparticles. Because the baryon number of antiparticles is negative, physicists discovered the law of conservation of baryons. The baryon number of the meson is zero, so it cannot have an effect on the conservation of the baryon number at all, or it reflects the conservation of the baryon number.

Mesons can decay to produce neutrinos, so can quarks produce neutrinos under certain conditions? I know that neutrinos are elementary particles, but electron elementary particles can produce electron neutrinos. Therefore, being the same elementary particle does not limit quarks. Protons cannot produce neutrinos, so it is said that yin produces neutrinos and may require antiquarks. In this way, quarks have the potential to produce neutrinos. However, it is definitely not possible to achieve it on its own.

The spin angular momentum of the meson is zero. Momentum is the basis of kinetic energy, whereas angular momentum is in turn based on momentum. We know that the distance from the center of mass of the meson to the center of rotation is certainly not zero, then only the momentum is zero. In this case, isn't the kinetic energy zero? And the meson will have no kinetic energy when it rotates, so how should all this be explained? Note that here is the spin angular momentum, not what we usually call angular momentum. That being the case, there must be a difference in the calculation formula. So, it's not surprising that there are zeros. It's just that what exactly this formula is, it is not known. Margarita appeared in the finale, and it was extraordinary.