Can quarks be synthesized into atomic  structure?
401428
Basically no. The idea behind subatomic physics is that when things get stuck together, you have to put energy into them to split them apart. (just like "real" physics). The tighter they are stuck together, they more energy it takes to split them apart. And the smaller they are, the tighter they are stuck together.\n\nQuarks are stuck together into subatomic particles so tightly that we need to build even bigger more powerful "atom smashers" to bust them loose; big "racetracks" miles across where the electrons can wind up faster and faster until they get released at the target. Costs a LOT to build. Until then, they're just a theoretical toy.\n\nAs for 'colors', that's just a name they made up to classify them by, doesn't apply to anything real. Same as the properties they call 'strangeness' or 'charm'.
664567
One should not group antimatter particles all into the word element. It is possible to make any of the elements in the form of antimatter, and for any element the antimatter equivalent would be incredibly rare here on earth. Now to say the rarest is very hard because there could be at any given point in time a number of antimatter hydrogen atoms that might seem like a large number, to the human mind, here on earth. Anti hydrogen would be the most abundant anti element, although still inconcievably rare. However, some of the heaviest non-antimatter elements that have been created in the lab probably ocasionally briefly come into existence in nature here on earth. Some of these metals might be rarer than antihydrogen, the most abundent antielement here on earth. \nNote: positrons, anti electrons, are the most abundent easily observable antiparticle, but I have left them out because they are not an element.\n\nNow, as for the universe in general: It is a real curiousity that there does not seem to be an equal amount of antimatter as matter. We humans do not now how to create matter without also creating an equal amount of antimatter. Yet, it seems as though our universe is made up almost entirely of matter... What happened to all of the antimatter during the creation of the Universe??? I don't know, and as far as I am aware of there is not a solid leading theory to explain this enigma, but many ideas have been suggested with associated mathematics. Some of them propose that the antimatter went into another dimension. Others propose that there was a very slight inequality in the quantity of matter and antimatter with the difference being the matter that is currently in existence. Still others contend that the some total of matter and antimater within the Universe are still of equal quantities, but the areas where this antimatter is hiding is too far for light to have reached us from those locations. Although I have a preference between these ideas, I will not say what it is. So, lets just say that that might be a good topic for someone interested in the subject to do some real research.
341412
There are some theories that suggest that quarks and leptons are composed of smaller "fundamental" particles known as Preons or Rishons (depending on the theory you read). The rishon theory nicely shows why electrons and quarks always have a charge that's a multiple of e/3 by having the same rishons or antirishons inside them.\n\nAlso they have a hypercolour property similar to the colour property of quarks that explains why the particles we see (leptons or confined quarks) always have an integer multiple of e charge.\n\nThese theories also have downsides too, such as Heisenbergs uncertainty principle stating that a particle that small must have a large amount of energy, which is more than the mass of an electron!
1032403
No because an atom is only a single element and thus such a "universe" would have no chemical composition except for the single atom it would have been made from
38608
At first, scientists thought the atom was the smallest possible particle. Then they thought the electron, proton and neutron were the smallest. Now we have the quarks and other basic particles.\n\nAlthough they haven't discovered if quarks are made up of even smaller particles, I will guess that in a few years, scientists will discover that they are made of something smaller yet.
303179
A quantum computer requires entangling quarks. To make an effective machine, you need hundreds of simultaneously entangled quarks. They would need to be stable, and hidden from view of any reading machine - if viewed, the quarks (due to quantum decoherence) would take on either a 0 or a 1, and the computer would fail.\n\nHowever, if you do it, you'll:\n\n1) be richer than your wildest dreams could ponder\n\n2) have caused a global security crisis, because every modern encription system could easily be solved by your computer, giving you access to practically everything on the internet.\n\nGood Luck!
473847
Charm quarks were first seen, and are most commonly observed, in the production of the J / psi particle, which is the lowest mass bound state of charmonium (a c/anti-c quark combination).  As with any quark, you'll never see one unbound (for reasons I won't go into here).\n\nIf by 'seen' you mean 'observed', then the above particle was first seen in a particle chamber at SLAC and at Brookhaven - and any observation which provides information about quark composition of particles will also take place in a particle chamber of some kind, as only they are capable of tracking particle motion - and it is the specific forms of particle tracks which allow us to identify quark composition.
68836
Protons and neutrons are both made of quarks. A proton has two "up" quarks and one "down" quark, while the neutron has two "down" quarks and one "up" quark. (The up and down are just names for these two types of quark, there is no physical significance to the name. They could have selected Chocolate and Vanilla instead.)\n\nProtons and neutrons are almost always desribed as being composed of three quarks, but there are also gluons running around. Gluons are the particles which control the interaction of quarks within a proton or neutron. They carry the force that binds the three quarks together to form the larger particle.\n\nSo a proton or neutron has three quarks and a cloud of gluons.\n\nIf one combines a proton and an electron and a neutrino you will get a neutron, but, in the oddness of quantum physics that doesn't mean a neutron is made of these little guys.\n\nElectrons on the other hand seem to have no consituents, at least down to the level that has been probed with modern instruments.
453117
How can you have something if nothings there? Atoms are made up or protons, neutrons, and quarks which are the basic building blocks of matter. Well at least until someone discovers there made up of something else lol!
1033923
No. Any naturally occurring antimatter would have long since been annihilated by a corresponding matter. As for artificially generated antimatter, I believe that we have managed to isolate no more than a few thousand antiatoms. For comparison, 1 gram of hydrogen contains 6.022*10^23 atoms - the amount of antimatter we have is so small that if we were to react the entire world's supply of antimatter with an equivalent amount of matter, we would have just enough energy to create a visible spark.
95898
The most fundamental particles known to exist at the moment are quarks and leptons. Quarks are the things the make up the pieces of the nucleus in an atom and leptons include things like electrons.\n\nWithin a nucleus you will have heard of Protons and Neutrons ro collectively Nucleons. Well a quark is a sub unit of one of these so called "Nucleons". There are three quarks to every nucleon. There are many types of quark and these create many types of particles, most of which are extremely shortlived. You can learn more about the world of Particle Physics in the Particle Physics Adventure.\n\nhttp://particleadventure.org/particleadventure/
15904
Probably not.  There are several problems\n\n1) because of the Heizenberg(sp?) uncertainty principle to learn of the exact direction of an atom one would change it's original direction.\n\n2) even if we could know a priori all that information it would require a simulation machine the size of the universe to calculate everything exactly.\n\n3)  I think there are still events of randomness at the atomic level that cannot be predicted.
1176860
In theory, yes.  You create a new element each time you add one more proton to the previous one.\n\nIn practice, there seems to be a practical limit to the stability of the artificial elements that requires exponentially increasing amounts of energy to create the heavier artificial elements.  And since these new elements are usually only stable for tiny fractions of a second, we can't hold them in place for long enough to pump another proton in.\n\nInstead, what physicists do is take larger stable atoms and smash them together, and then look for signs of new elements based on their expected decay particles.
391370
Not really, a solid is usually atoms packed closely enough together so that they bond and form a structure that is resistant to change. Blackhole cores are of collapsed matter: there are no atoms, protons or even quarks. Just like plasma isn't "gas," blackhole material isn't solid
397017
You would have to be able to take a base measurement on the number of quarks that is associated with gravity in an area observed and tell over time if there is a gain or loss of quarks from the base measurement.\n\nP.S.\nThere is no way in the world that the current technology can even begin to do this provided that we would have to agree that // universes exist.
827113
As a practical matter, it is impossible.  If the model is the size of a basketball, the nucleus would be a point in the center too small to see, and the electrons would be modeled as fog of various concentrations depending on position.  This applies to all elements, not just krypton.
422248
For the time being, we do not know if quarks themselves haveany volume at all. If they, do, the best answer I can give (if we forget the interactions that bind them - which may be a big mistake or not, for there are many more quarks in a proton, than the commonly known 3), the radius of a quark is less than 10^-19m, let's say that it is equal to that, say we have a ball with a radius of 1cm=10^-2 m, making it 10^17 times bigger (linear measurement) So going into  volumes, we get 10^51, which is my approximation.