🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1OCT199211553820@csa3.lbl.gov> sichase@csa3.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE) writes:
>In article <BvFxun.626@news.udel.edu>, mvb@chopin.udel.edu (Maurice V. Barnhill) writes...
>>Rishons were hypothesized as constituents of quarks.  The general idea was to
>>explain the prolification of quarks by describing them as the bound states
>>of a smaller number of constitutent particles.  The proposal didn't lead
>>anywhere useful and the idea was abandoned.
>
>Your definition is correct, but I don't agree with your conclusion.  Rishons
>in particular may not be useful, but the general idea of quark constituents
>drives a good deal of experimental work looking for substructure.   
> [further comments deleted]
>Scott I. Chase			"The question seems to be of such a character
>SICHASE@CSA2.LBL.GOV		that if I should come to life after my death
>				and some mathematician were to tell me that it
>				had been definitely settled, I think I would
>				immediately drop dead again."      - Vandiver

 I agree completely.  I meant only that the rishon model itself was not being
actively considered, not that the idea of quark constituents in general had
been abandoned.  Thanks for the clarification.
       Maurice Barnhill
       University of Delaware