Electrons have miraculous aplication in modern times,Is there a usage for Quarks?
455872
Quarks are bound together by the strong nuclear force.\nAs far as i understand it, quarks don't like to be separated from other quarks for very long, and exert strong attractive forces on neighbouring quarks to coalesce them into a particle with a white colour (this is a technical term for saying you need one blue, one red, and one green quark).\nThe current reason for research into quarks is that they *appear* to be fundamental particles.\nIt may take many more years before we are able to use them in any practical way.
16264
The Bohr model is simply an easier model of the atom. Sure it has been proven that electrons are really a probability cloud centered around the nucleus, but try explaining that to a 6th grader. \n\nYour question could also be asked of Newtonian physics. Why do we teach it when Mr. Einstein's theory of relativity has proven it wrong? \n\nThe answer to that question and yours is basically...it's good enough :-P
184932
Nobody knows WHY electrons only exist in descrete rings.\nThe quantum physics only describles the facts but does not explain why.
168218
Atoms are combinations of protons and neutrons with electrons flying around. They form the basic "elements" of matter.\n\nThe nucleus of an atom has protons and neutrons (except for hydrogen which has one proton). There are about the same number of protons and neutrons in each nucleus, although for larger nuclei (like uranium) there are more neutrons.\n\nAll of these particles have a variety of specific characteristics. For example an electron has a negative charge and a proton has a positive charge, while the neutron is neutral. The charge of the proton and electron are identical except for the sign.\n\nProtons 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 \nChocolate and Vanilla instead.)\n\nProtons and neutrons are almost always described 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\n(Just as an aside: If 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.
788721
Protons and neutrons are made of three quarks each. Quarks have properties with names like up, down, color, flavor, truth, beauty and charm. They also carry a charge of +2/3 and -1/3 of a proton's charge, so two 2/3 quarks combined with one -1/3 make a proton, and one 2/3 with two -1/3s make a neutron.\n\nThat's one version, anyway. Physicists are now poking around at an even smaller level than quarks in the latest attempt to unify the four forces of nature and have come up with several types of string theory as possible explanations.\n\nStrings are supposed to be one-dimensional things that vibrate in ten-dimensional space and are the fundamental components of everything. Physicists have hypothesized a smallest possible length - called the Planck length - and a smallest possible time - the Planck time, how long it takes light to travel the Planck length. If these things are real it means that space and time come in tiny chunks just like energy: there is no Planck length/2, for example.\n\nPretty strange concepts, however not as strange as assuming that things are infinitely sub-dividable. That leads to even worse paradoxes!
262536
They are known as the fundamental particles of an atom.\n\nIn the nucleus, the PROTONS, which have the + charge, and the NEUTRONS, which have the 0 charge.\n\nOutside the nucleus, the ELECTRONS, which have the - charge.\n\nBut research has it that there are more particles of an atom like the quark, antiquark, lepton, antilepton
884602
well, an electron is a subatomic particle, obviously, as is a positron.\nand a positron is the exact opposite of the electron (antiparticle to be precise)\n\ni think the problem with the positron current is that it's extremely uncommon? correct me if I'm wrong, because this isn't really my strong point at all. \n\nA positron may be generated by positron emission radioactive decay, or the interaction of photon with a charged particle. Thus, I would imagine that's why they are uncommon, unlike electrons, which are pretty much everywhere.
534703
If you're referring to a massive object, as opposed to a photon(which is massless), No.\n\nParticle accelerators routinely accelerate electrons or protons to around .99999c (c=the speed of light)and then have them collide with other particles traveling at similar speed. \n\nThe result is a shower of sub-atomic particles, called Quarks and Gluons.\n\nQuantum physicists are busy trying to sort-out this proliferation of particles.  Makes for a lot of PhD theses!
360137
the simplistic answer involves the electrons, protons and neutrons. the more complex answer contains up quarks, down quarks- which are the building blocks of protons and neutrons. \nThen if we think about it we have also got anti-matter, which is involved in bonding and so forth, and so must be around somewhere. positrons, anti-bonding orbitals, etc.
106790
< quark >   \n \nAny of a group of six elementary particles having electric charges of a magnitude one-third or two-thirds that of the electron, regarded as constituents of all hadrons.\n\nIn particle physics, quarks are subatomic particles thought to be elemental and indivisible. They are one of the two kinds of spin-? fermions (the other being the leptons). Objects made up of quarks are known as hadrons; well known examples are protons and neutrons.
823744
Yes, I guess because of electrons behave both as material particles and waves!
12647
What might cause some confusion is that the electron resides in an "electron shell", and some theorize that the electron can be at any position in that shell at any time.\nMost do consider the electron a particle, but it depends on how you define the behavior.
464300
Neutrons are made of quarks, yes. As are protons/neutrons (which are just positive/negative neutrons).
1160608
Protons are composed of quarks, the smallest currently know material of the universe. Quarks have a + or a - (positive or negative) charge and it is when they are added that it creates a magnetic property. For example, protons are made of 3 quarks, 2 positive, 1 negative thus summing up to a charge of +1.
60596
Gaining an electron...
278891
The concepts that we cling to suggest that protons and electrons are particles that occupy a finite POINT in space. The truth is that this is a good picture to use to fit the kind of world we see outside the atom. But in fact we only know that the effects of electrons appear to come from one location, and that location (of the effects) seems to change with time. Therefore we say the particle (electron) moved.\n\n Regarding the nucleus and the protons and neutrons, it is difficult to picture stationary objects packed so closely together, particularly since the protons are repulsive to each other and since strange events periodically erupt from within most of them - sort of analogous to groups of people from opposing schools required to mingle at a party, but never allowed to group together with their friends. Occasionally a fight breaks out and someboby is pitched out the side door or window. Again at the site we identify with the particle, all we know is that there are electric and magnetic field characteristics emanating from the "site" where we say the particle resides. If the essence of the fields move, we say the particle moved.\n\nSo what is an electron? All we know is that there is an electric and magnetic field disturbance together with a phenomenon we call mass (gravitational emanations), that changes in location with time. That there is a central location for the emanations allows us to specify a spatial position for the particle.
1148010
You have to understand that the coulomb was valued before the idea of an electron existed (1700's versus 1900's). Electrical circuitry was around long before anyone guessed that electrons were there. A coulomb was just the amount of charge that flowed through a wire in 1 second at 1 amp. It's an arbitrarily selected constant, but consistent with the other selected constants of that time period. It's also an easy size to work with for macroscopic calculations, and is directly tied to Joules, Watts, Ohms, and so on. We CAN use the electron as a "positive charge", but it was selected (arbitrarily, again) as negative early on. The mole is, of course, along the same lines; it fit with their units at the time and was based on other preexisting units.