Sorry that was your quote, I should have highlighted it as follows: Joe said:
The positron will be subject to EM forces that the neutron is not. On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 6:28 PM, Joseph S. Barrera III < jbarr...@slac.stanford.edu> wrote: > On 5/3/2013 2:02 PM, Axil Axil wrote: > >> The positron will be subject to EM forces that the neutron is not. >> It all depends on the level that you are looking at. Yes, when looking at >> the neutron on from the outside, you statement is correct. But when looking >> at the neutron on the inside, the charged quarks fell the electrostatic and >> magnetic field imposed on them from the outside due to virtual photons >> emitted by electrons. >> > > Well, if you posit the existence of quarks, then why do we need a positron? > > Are you guys positing that a proton is (u, u, d) and a neutron is (u, u, > d, e+) but only until you probe it at high energies at which point it > suddenly looks like (u, d, d)? > > Wouldn't it make more sense if the neutron were always (u, d, d)? > > - Joe > >
