Is it a coincidence that quarks have exactly -1/3 or 2/3 the electron's charge?

The name of the pictureThe name of the pictureThe name of the pictureClash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP











up vote
4
down vote

favorite












I have read these questions:



Why do quarks have a fractional charge?



Is there an explanation for the 3:2:1 ratio between the electron, up and down quark electric charges?



Hypercharge for $U(1)$ in $SU(2)times U(1)$ model



Is there any idea why the electric charges of electron and muon are equal?



My question is different. We live in a world, where quarks can have a real fraction of the elementary charge (-1/3 or 2/3). I do understand that the experimental data fits the models and that Baryons are made up of three quarks, and that those quarks can have -1/3 or 2/3 the elementary charge. This way, the quarks can combine so that the Baryon will have an integer of the elementary charge. This way, the nucleus and the electron can be in a stable atomic state, where their electric charges cancel (attract) exactly. Any other way, the atom would not be stable.



So electron says: hey quarks, let's team up, let's make an atom.



Quarks: Hey, great idea, how much electric charge do you have? Let's call it e. OK so we will team up of three of us, so we will just take each of us -1/3 or 2/3 of your charge.



Electron says: Great!, I feel it, this way we can have a stable atom.



Quarks: Great!



I mean come on! I do understand an respect that the experimental data tells us that electrons and quarks are both elementary particles.



It seems that the quarks teamed up exactly so three of them in Baryons so they can cancel out (attract) exactly the electron's electric charge. Now I do understand that there could be Baryons made up of four quarks, and they could have then -1/4 and 3/4 charge of the electron's elementary charge. This would work too, and the neutron and proton would have the same way an integer of the electron's charge. So the atom would be stable.



We could do this with any integer number of quarks. But, come on, my question is, what if the quarks' charge could only be -1/sqrt(3) and 2/sqrt(3)? How many quarks would we need then to make up the nucleus of to make it match the electron's charge? Is it mathematically possible to have any kind of electric charge for the quark? We could simply put as many valence quarks in a Baryon to make a stable atom?



Question:



  1. Is it a coincidence that quarks have -1/3 and 2/3 the electron's charge and there are three quarks in a Baryon? Could we have quarks with any kind of electric charge, like Sqrt(3)*elementary charge? Could we make a stable atom this way too? How many quarks would we put in this case into a Baryon to make atoms stable?


  2. I accept and respect that currently elecrons are elementary particles. Is it impossible as of today's view that both electrons and quarks are made up of the same something smaller (strings)?






charge standard-model quarks elementary-particles baryons







share|cite|improve this question























  • This is an unanswerable question. Physics doesn't tell us "why" the laws of physics are what they are. It just is, it has always been, and it works out. Something smaller (the generic term is "preons") is possible, but there is no evidence of preons to date. The binding energy of any preons would have to be very high given experimental constraints.
    – ohwilleke
    2 hours ago






  • 1




    There are some constraints like anomaly cancellations. Those tell you about some of the discrete parameters like this -1/3 etc.
    – AHusain
    2 hours ago










  • Related: physics.stackexchange.com/q/21753/2451 and links theren.
    – Qmechanic♦
    14 mins ago






  • 1




    Possible duplicate of Why do electron and proton have the same but opposite electric charge?
    – AccidentalFourierTransform
    11 mins ago














up vote
4
down vote

favorite












I have read these questions:



Why do quarks have a fractional charge?



Is there an explanation for the 3:2:1 ratio between the electron, up and down quark electric charges?



Hypercharge for $U(1)$ in $SU(2)times U(1)$ model



Is there any idea why the electric charges of electron and muon are equal?



My question is different. We live in a world, where quarks can have a real fraction of the elementary charge (-1/3 or 2/3). I do understand that the experimental data fits the models and that Baryons are made up of three quarks, and that those quarks can have -1/3 or 2/3 the elementary charge. This way, the quarks can combine so that the Baryon will have an integer of the elementary charge. This way, the nucleus and the electron can be in a stable atomic state, where their electric charges cancel (attract) exactly. Any other way, the atom would not be stable.



So electron says: hey quarks, let's team up, let's make an atom.



Quarks: Hey, great idea, how much electric charge do you have? Let's call it e. OK so we will team up of three of us, so we will just take each of us -1/3 or 2/3 of your charge.



Electron says: Great!, I feel it, this way we can have a stable atom.



Quarks: Great!



I mean come on! I do understand an respect that the experimental data tells us that electrons and quarks are both elementary particles.



It seems that the quarks teamed up exactly so three of them in Baryons so they can cancel out (attract) exactly the electron's electric charge. Now I do understand that there could be Baryons made up of four quarks, and they could have then -1/4 and 3/4 charge of the electron's elementary charge. This would work too, and the neutron and proton would have the same way an integer of the electron's charge. So the atom would be stable.



We could do this with any integer number of quarks. But, come on, my question is, what if the quarks' charge could only be -1/sqrt(3) and 2/sqrt(3)? How many quarks would we need then to make up the nucleus of to make it match the electron's charge? Is it mathematically possible to have any kind of electric charge for the quark? We could simply put as many valence quarks in a Baryon to make a stable atom?



Question:



  1. Is it a coincidence that quarks have -1/3 and 2/3 the electron's charge and there are three quarks in a Baryon? Could we have quarks with any kind of electric charge, like Sqrt(3)*elementary charge? Could we make a stable atom this way too? How many quarks would we put in this case into a Baryon to make atoms stable?


  2. I accept and respect that currently elecrons are elementary particles. Is it impossible as of today's view that both electrons and quarks are made up of the same something smaller (strings)?






charge standard-model quarks elementary-particles baryons







share|cite|improve this question























  • This is an unanswerable question. Physics doesn't tell us "why" the laws of physics are what they are. It just is, it has always been, and it works out. Something smaller (the generic term is "preons") is possible, but there is no evidence of preons to date. The binding energy of any preons would have to be very high given experimental constraints.
    – ohwilleke
    2 hours ago






  • 1




    There are some constraints like anomaly cancellations. Those tell you about some of the discrete parameters like this -1/3 etc.
    – AHusain
    2 hours ago










  • Related: physics.stackexchange.com/q/21753/2451 and links theren.
    – Qmechanic♦
    14 mins ago






  • 1




    Possible duplicate of Why do electron and proton have the same but opposite electric charge?
    – AccidentalFourierTransform
    11 mins ago












up vote
4
down vote

favorite









up vote
4
down vote

favorite











I have read these questions:



Why do quarks have a fractional charge?



Is there an explanation for the 3:2:1 ratio between the electron, up and down quark electric charges?



Hypercharge for $U(1)$ in $SU(2)times U(1)$ model



Is there any idea why the electric charges of electron and muon are equal?



My question is different. We live in a world, where quarks can have a real fraction of the elementary charge (-1/3 or 2/3). I do understand that the experimental data fits the models and that Baryons are made up of three quarks, and that those quarks can have -1/3 or 2/3 the elementary charge. This way, the quarks can combine so that the Baryon will have an integer of the elementary charge. This way, the nucleus and the electron can be in a stable atomic state, where their electric charges cancel (attract) exactly. Any other way, the atom would not be stable.



So electron says: hey quarks, let's team up, let's make an atom.



Quarks: Hey, great idea, how much electric charge do you have? Let's call it e. OK so we will team up of three of us, so we will just take each of us -1/3 or 2/3 of your charge.



Electron says: Great!, I feel it, this way we can have a stable atom.



Quarks: Great!



I mean come on! I do understand an respect that the experimental data tells us that electrons and quarks are both elementary particles.



It seems that the quarks teamed up exactly so three of them in Baryons so they can cancel out (attract) exactly the electron's electric charge. Now I do understand that there could be Baryons made up of four quarks, and they could have then -1/4 and 3/4 charge of the electron's elementary charge. This would work too, and the neutron and proton would have the same way an integer of the electron's charge. So the atom would be stable.



We could do this with any integer number of quarks. But, come on, my question is, what if the quarks' charge could only be -1/sqrt(3) and 2/sqrt(3)? How many quarks would we need then to make up the nucleus of to make it match the electron's charge? Is it mathematically possible to have any kind of electric charge for the quark? We could simply put as many valence quarks in a Baryon to make a stable atom?



Question:



  1. Is it a coincidence that quarks have -1/3 and 2/3 the electron's charge and there are three quarks in a Baryon? Could we have quarks with any kind of electric charge, like Sqrt(3)*elementary charge? Could we make a stable atom this way too? How many quarks would we put in this case into a Baryon to make atoms stable?


  2. I accept and respect that currently elecrons are elementary particles. Is it impossible as of today's view that both electrons and quarks are made up of the same something smaller (strings)?






charge standard-model quarks elementary-particles baryons







share|cite|improve this question















I have read these questions:



Why do quarks have a fractional charge?



Is there an explanation for the 3:2:1 ratio between the electron, up and down quark electric charges?



Hypercharge for $U(1)$ in $SU(2)times U(1)$ model



Is there any idea why the electric charges of electron and muon are equal?



My question is different. We live in a world, where quarks can have a real fraction of the elementary charge (-1/3 or 2/3). I do understand that the experimental data fits the models and that Baryons are made up of three quarks, and that those quarks can have -1/3 or 2/3 the elementary charge. This way, the quarks can combine so that the Baryon will have an integer of the elementary charge. This way, the nucleus and the electron can be in a stable atomic state, where their electric charges cancel (attract) exactly. Any other way, the atom would not be stable.



So electron says: hey quarks, let's team up, let's make an atom.



Quarks: Hey, great idea, how much electric charge do you have? Let's call it e. OK so we will team up of three of us, so we will just take each of us -1/3 or 2/3 of your charge.



Electron says: Great!, I feel it, this way we can have a stable atom.



Quarks: Great!



I mean come on! I do understand an respect that the experimental data tells us that electrons and quarks are both elementary particles.



It seems that the quarks teamed up exactly so three of them in Baryons so they can cancel out (attract) exactly the electron's electric charge. Now I do understand that there could be Baryons made up of four quarks, and they could have then -1/4 and 3/4 charge of the electron's elementary charge. This would work too, and the neutron and proton would have the same way an integer of the electron's charge. So the atom would be stable.



We could do this with any integer number of quarks. But, come on, my question is, what if the quarks' charge could only be -1/sqrt(3) and 2/sqrt(3)? How many quarks would we need then to make up the nucleus of to make it match the electron's charge? Is it mathematically possible to have any kind of electric charge for the quark? We could simply put as many valence quarks in a Baryon to make a stable atom?



Question:



  1. Is it a coincidence that quarks have -1/3 and 2/3 the electron's charge and there are three quarks in a Baryon? Could we have quarks with any kind of electric charge, like Sqrt(3)*elementary charge? Could we make a stable atom this way too? How many quarks would we put in this case into a Baryon to make atoms stable?


  2. I accept and respect that currently elecrons are elementary particles. Is it impossible as of today's view that both electrons and quarks are made up of the same something smaller (strings)?






charge standard-model quarks elementary-particles baryons




charge standard-model quarks elementary-particles baryons






share|cite|improve this question















share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited 25 mins ago









Qmechanic♦

98.2k121721066




98.2k121721066










asked 2 hours ago









Árpád Szendrei

3,4331521




3,4331521











  • This is an unanswerable question. Physics doesn't tell us "why" the laws of physics are what they are. It just is, it has always been, and it works out. Something smaller (the generic term is "preons") is possible, but there is no evidence of preons to date. The binding energy of any preons would have to be very high given experimental constraints.
    – ohwilleke
    2 hours ago






  • 1




    There are some constraints like anomaly cancellations. Those tell you about some of the discrete parameters like this -1/3 etc.
    – AHusain
    2 hours ago










  • Related: physics.stackexchange.com/q/21753/2451 and links theren.
    – Qmechanic♦
    14 mins ago






  • 1




    Possible duplicate of Why do electron and proton have the same but opposite electric charge?
    – AccidentalFourierTransform
    11 mins ago
















  • This is an unanswerable question. Physics doesn't tell us "why" the laws of physics are what they are. It just is, it has always been, and it works out. Something smaller (the generic term is "preons") is possible, but there is no evidence of preons to date. The binding energy of any preons would have to be very high given experimental constraints.
    – ohwilleke
    2 hours ago






  • 1




    There are some constraints like anomaly cancellations. Those tell you about some of the discrete parameters like this -1/3 etc.
    – AHusain
    2 hours ago










  • Related: physics.stackexchange.com/q/21753/2451 and links theren.
    – Qmechanic♦
    14 mins ago






  • 1




    Possible duplicate of Why do electron and proton have the same but opposite electric charge?
    – AccidentalFourierTransform
    11 mins ago















This is an unanswerable question. Physics doesn't tell us "why" the laws of physics are what they are. It just is, it has always been, and it works out. Something smaller (the generic term is "preons") is possible, but there is no evidence of preons to date. The binding energy of any preons would have to be very high given experimental constraints.
– ohwilleke
2 hours ago




This is an unanswerable question. Physics doesn't tell us "why" the laws of physics are what they are. It just is, it has always been, and it works out. Something smaller (the generic term is "preons") is possible, but there is no evidence of preons to date. The binding energy of any preons would have to be very high given experimental constraints.
– ohwilleke
2 hours ago




1




1




There are some constraints like anomaly cancellations. Those tell you about some of the discrete parameters like this -1/3 etc.
– AHusain
2 hours ago




There are some constraints like anomaly cancellations. Those tell you about some of the discrete parameters like this -1/3 etc.
– AHusain
2 hours ago












Related: physics.stackexchange.com/q/21753/2451 and links theren.
– Qmechanic♦
14 mins ago




Related: physics.stackexchange.com/q/21753/2451 and links theren.
– Qmechanic♦
14 mins ago




1




1




Possible duplicate of Why do electron and proton have the same but opposite electric charge?
– AccidentalFourierTransform
11 mins ago




Possible duplicate of Why do electron and proton have the same but opposite electric charge?
– AccidentalFourierTransform
11 mins ago










1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes

















up vote
2
down vote













The charges of the quarks must be simple fractions of the electron charge $e$, because otherwise there would be a breakdown of charge conservation in quantum corrections. The fractions do not need to be $-frac23$ and $frac13$ specifically. In simple models with $2n+1$ quarks making up the proton (the number of quarks must be odd, so that the nucleons are still fermions with spin-$frac12$), the quarks naturally carry charges $-fracn+12n+1e$ and $fracn2n+1e$. And more elaborate composite nucleon models can have constituent partons with other rational multiples of $e$.



However, not all all fractions of $e$ are going to be allowed as charges of the constituent quarks. Moreover, irrational multiples of the electron charge are generally not possible. The reason is tied to the structure of the full electroweak interaction, of which electromagnetism is only one part. In relativistic quantum field theory, there are are quantum corrections that involve the interactions of three separate gauge bosons (photons, $Z^0$, and $W^pm$) with virtual fermion-antifermion pairs. The fermions involved can be quarks, electrons, muons, neutrinos, etc, and the sizes of the quantum corrections are determined (in part) by the charges of those fermion species. If the quark and electron charges are not in the correct rational ratios, certain quantum corrections will be nonzero.



These quantum anomaly terms lead to nonconservation of the classically conserved currents in the theory, and this destroys several necessary properties of the theory—stability, unitarity, and renormalizability. Equivalently, if we want to have a well-defined quantum theory, these anomaly terms need to be exactly zero. This is known as "anomaly cancelation," and this places the stringent constraints on how the values of the various fermion species can be related.






share|cite|improve this answer




















    Your Answer




    StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function ()
    return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function ()
    StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix)
    StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
    );
    );
    , "mathjax-editing");

    StackExchange.ready(function()
    var channelOptions =
    tags: "".split(" "),
    id: "151"
    ;
    initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

    StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
    // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
    if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
    StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
    createEditor();
    );

    else
    createEditor();

    );

    function createEditor()
    StackExchange.prepareEditor(
    heartbeatType: 'answer',
    convertImagesToLinks: false,
    noModals: false,
    showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
    reputationToPostImages: null,
    bindNavPrevention: true,
    postfix: "",
    noCode: true, onDemand: true,
    discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
    ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
    );



    );













     

    draft saved


    draft discarded


















    StackExchange.ready(
    function ()
    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphysics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f435858%2fis-it-a-coincidence-that-quarks-have-exactly-1-3-or-2-3-the-electrons-charge%23new-answer', 'question_page');

    );

    Post as a guest

















    1 Answer
    1






    active

    oldest

    votes








    1 Answer
    1






    active

    oldest

    votes









    active

    oldest

    votes






    active

    oldest

    votes








    up vote
    2
    down vote













    The charges of the quarks must be simple fractions of the electron charge $e$, because otherwise there would be a breakdown of charge conservation in quantum corrections. The fractions do not need to be $-frac23$ and $frac13$ specifically. In simple models with $2n+1$ quarks making up the proton (the number of quarks must be odd, so that the nucleons are still fermions with spin-$frac12$), the quarks naturally carry charges $-fracn+12n+1e$ and $fracn2n+1e$. And more elaborate composite nucleon models can have constituent partons with other rational multiples of $e$.



    However, not all all fractions of $e$ are going to be allowed as charges of the constituent quarks. Moreover, irrational multiples of the electron charge are generally not possible. The reason is tied to the structure of the full electroweak interaction, of which electromagnetism is only one part. In relativistic quantum field theory, there are are quantum corrections that involve the interactions of three separate gauge bosons (photons, $Z^0$, and $W^pm$) with virtual fermion-antifermion pairs. The fermions involved can be quarks, electrons, muons, neutrinos, etc, and the sizes of the quantum corrections are determined (in part) by the charges of those fermion species. If the quark and electron charges are not in the correct rational ratios, certain quantum corrections will be nonzero.



    These quantum anomaly terms lead to nonconservation of the classically conserved currents in the theory, and this destroys several necessary properties of the theory—stability, unitarity, and renormalizability. Equivalently, if we want to have a well-defined quantum theory, these anomaly terms need to be exactly zero. This is known as "anomaly cancelation," and this places the stringent constraints on how the values of the various fermion species can be related.






    share|cite|improve this answer
























      up vote
      2
      down vote













      The charges of the quarks must be simple fractions of the electron charge $e$, because otherwise there would be a breakdown of charge conservation in quantum corrections. The fractions do not need to be $-frac23$ and $frac13$ specifically. In simple models with $2n+1$ quarks making up the proton (the number of quarks must be odd, so that the nucleons are still fermions with spin-$frac12$), the quarks naturally carry charges $-fracn+12n+1e$ and $fracn2n+1e$. And more elaborate composite nucleon models can have constituent partons with other rational multiples of $e$.



      However, not all all fractions of $e$ are going to be allowed as charges of the constituent quarks. Moreover, irrational multiples of the electron charge are generally not possible. The reason is tied to the structure of the full electroweak interaction, of which electromagnetism is only one part. In relativistic quantum field theory, there are are quantum corrections that involve the interactions of three separate gauge bosons (photons, $Z^0$, and $W^pm$) with virtual fermion-antifermion pairs. The fermions involved can be quarks, electrons, muons, neutrinos, etc, and the sizes of the quantum corrections are determined (in part) by the charges of those fermion species. If the quark and electron charges are not in the correct rational ratios, certain quantum corrections will be nonzero.



      These quantum anomaly terms lead to nonconservation of the classically conserved currents in the theory, and this destroys several necessary properties of the theory—stability, unitarity, and renormalizability. Equivalently, if we want to have a well-defined quantum theory, these anomaly terms need to be exactly zero. This is known as "anomaly cancelation," and this places the stringent constraints on how the values of the various fermion species can be related.






      share|cite|improve this answer






















        up vote
        2
        down vote










        up vote
        2
        down vote









        The charges of the quarks must be simple fractions of the electron charge $e$, because otherwise there would be a breakdown of charge conservation in quantum corrections. The fractions do not need to be $-frac23$ and $frac13$ specifically. In simple models with $2n+1$ quarks making up the proton (the number of quarks must be odd, so that the nucleons are still fermions with spin-$frac12$), the quarks naturally carry charges $-fracn+12n+1e$ and $fracn2n+1e$. And more elaborate composite nucleon models can have constituent partons with other rational multiples of $e$.



        However, not all all fractions of $e$ are going to be allowed as charges of the constituent quarks. Moreover, irrational multiples of the electron charge are generally not possible. The reason is tied to the structure of the full electroweak interaction, of which electromagnetism is only one part. In relativistic quantum field theory, there are are quantum corrections that involve the interactions of three separate gauge bosons (photons, $Z^0$, and $W^pm$) with virtual fermion-antifermion pairs. The fermions involved can be quarks, electrons, muons, neutrinos, etc, and the sizes of the quantum corrections are determined (in part) by the charges of those fermion species. If the quark and electron charges are not in the correct rational ratios, certain quantum corrections will be nonzero.



        These quantum anomaly terms lead to nonconservation of the classically conserved currents in the theory, and this destroys several necessary properties of the theory—stability, unitarity, and renormalizability. Equivalently, if we want to have a well-defined quantum theory, these anomaly terms need to be exactly zero. This is known as "anomaly cancelation," and this places the stringent constraints on how the values of the various fermion species can be related.






        share|cite|improve this answer












        The charges of the quarks must be simple fractions of the electron charge $e$, because otherwise there would be a breakdown of charge conservation in quantum corrections. The fractions do not need to be $-frac23$ and $frac13$ specifically. In simple models with $2n+1$ quarks making up the proton (the number of quarks must be odd, so that the nucleons are still fermions with spin-$frac12$), the quarks naturally carry charges $-fracn+12n+1e$ and $fracn2n+1e$. And more elaborate composite nucleon models can have constituent partons with other rational multiples of $e$.



        However, not all all fractions of $e$ are going to be allowed as charges of the constituent quarks. Moreover, irrational multiples of the electron charge are generally not possible. The reason is tied to the structure of the full electroweak interaction, of which electromagnetism is only one part. In relativistic quantum field theory, there are are quantum corrections that involve the interactions of three separate gauge bosons (photons, $Z^0$, and $W^pm$) with virtual fermion-antifermion pairs. The fermions involved can be quarks, electrons, muons, neutrinos, etc, and the sizes of the quantum corrections are determined (in part) by the charges of those fermion species. If the quark and electron charges are not in the correct rational ratios, certain quantum corrections will be nonzero.



        These quantum anomaly terms lead to nonconservation of the classically conserved currents in the theory, and this destroys several necessary properties of the theory—stability, unitarity, and renormalizability. Equivalently, if we want to have a well-defined quantum theory, these anomaly terms need to be exactly zero. This is known as "anomaly cancelation," and this places the stringent constraints on how the values of the various fermion species can be related.







        share|cite|improve this answer












        share|cite|improve this answer



        share|cite|improve this answer










        answered 2 hours ago









        Buzz

        2,63821220




        2,63821220



























             

            draft saved


            draft discarded















































             


            draft saved


            draft discarded














            StackExchange.ready(
            function ()
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphysics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f435858%2fis-it-a-coincidence-that-quarks-have-exactly-1-3-or-2-3-the-electrons-charge%23new-answer', 'question_page');

            );

            Post as a guest
































































            Comments

            Post a Comment

            Popular posts from this blog

            What does second last employer means? [closed]

            Image
            Clash Royale CLAN TAG #URR8PPP .everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty margin-bottom:0; up vote -3 down vote favorite Say, for example I have worked in the following companies, Company A => 2010 - 2011 Company B => 2011 - 2012 Company C => 2012 - Till Date Company D => Have offer Now assume Company D is asking to submit documents from my second last employer. So from the list of companies given, which company would be qualified as second last employer? software-industry employer share | improve this question asked Aug 10 '14 at 5:16 Rajaprabhu Aravindasamy 559 1 6 13 closed as off-topic by Jim G., jmort253 ♦ Aug 11 '14 at 1:58 This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason: "Questions seeking advice on company-specific regulations, agreements, or policies should be directed to your manager or HR department. Questions that address...
            Read more

            Installing NextGIS Connect into QGIS 3?

            Image
            Clash Royale CLAN TAG #URR8PPP .everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty margin-bottom:0; up vote 1 down vote favorite Just acquired free version of NEXTGIS and trying to install the plugin for QGIS. It tells me it was not designed for version 3 of QGIS. How do I set up the QGIS-NEXTGIS interface then? qgis qgis-plugins nextgis share | improve this question edited 3 hours ago PolyGeo ♦ 51.9k 17 77 233 asked 4 hours ago IanGS 16 4 New contributor IanGS is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering. Check out our Code of Conduct. add a comment  |  up vote 1 down vote favorite Just acquired free version of NEXTGIS and trying to install the plugin for QGIS. It tells me it was not designed for version 3 of QGIS. How do I set up the QGIS-NEXTGIS interface then? qgis qgis-plugin...
            Read more

            One-line joke

            A one-liner is a joke that is delivered in a single line. A good one-liner is said to be pithy - concise and meaningful. [1] Comedians and actors use this comedic method as part of their act, e.g. Jimmy Carr, Tommy Cooper, Rodney Dangerfield, Norm Macdonald, Ken Dodd, Stewart Francis, Zach Galifianakis, Mitch Hedberg, Anthony Jeselnik, Milton Jones, Shappi Khorsandi, Jay London, Mark Linn-Baker, Demetri Martin, Groucho Marx, Dan Mintz, Emo Philips, Tim Vine, Steven Wright and Henny Youngman and Arnold Schwarzenegger. [ citation needed ] Many fictional characters are also known to deliver one-liners, including James Bond, who usually includes pithy and laconic quips after disposing of a villain. [ citation needed ] Examples "A baby seal walks into a club." "A dyslexic man walks into a bra." (Anonymous) "There are three types of people, those who can count and those who can't." "Venison's dear, isn't it?" (Jimmy Carr) "An escala...
            Read more