Comment by foxes
3 years ago
I don’t think this is necessarily new. On the level of fields the universe is not nice little particles or waves in neat groups in a vacuum. It’s a roaring, swirling turbulent ocean. Yes what we call a proton is still a particular configuration, but it’s not existing in a vacuum, it can entangle with other stuff. When we do some experiment it’s like trying to pick a particular wave out of the ocean. Seeing a charm anti charm pair popping up sometimes shouldn’t really be a surprise.
There’s nothing wrong with the 3 quark description of a proton, it’s a model, it’s useful up to a certain level of accuracy.
I don't think it is, I think this is just a popsci article on that well-known (in the field) fact.
I don't want to make it sound easy, because as the article says, our math lacks the ability to handle the way our current best theories describe it, but it certainly isn't any easier trying to understand QCD through the lens of particles as the fundamental objects. It's really a mess of field fluctuations, and in those field fluctuations we have certain patterns we call "particles", but those patterns can shift and ebb and flow in any number of ways, including in ways we have no intuitions for since our macroscopic intuition keeps wanting to sneak particles in the backdoor despite everything being waves.
Directly understanding what's going on isn't easy, but it's probably still easier than trying to hold on to particle-based ideas.
Or, you know, since none of this matters on a day-by-day basis to hardly anyone, I think just looking at it from the particle point of view and calling it a day is a perfectly viable option. In which case, a proton is three quarks, full stop. It's not 100% correct, but hey, QCD isn't either (still waiting on that Grand Unified Theory), so there's no real harm in stopping at the 3-quark model.
> but hey, QCD isn't either (still waiting on that Grand Unified Theory)
Note that there may well not exist any GUT. However, QCD can't be correct until it also accounts for gravitational effect, so what we're waiting for is a theory of Quantum Gravity that is consistent with both QCD and General Relativity.
The universe runs on some principle. It may not be accessible to us, either for inability to gather the data, inability to represent it in our heads, or sheer staggering complexity, but there is some unified theory.
1 reply →