[HN Gopher] Gravity Helps Show Strong Force Strength in the Proton
___________________________________________________________________
Gravity Helps Show Strong Force Strength in the Proton
Author : thunderbong
Score : 58 points
Date : 2024-01-28 08:02 UTC (14 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.jlab.org)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.jlab.org)
| evanb wrote:
| I explained roughly speaking why this is _called_ gravitational
| without actually involving an experimental use of background
| gravity or gravitons in this comment some months ago:
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35444056
| rudolfwinestock wrote:
| From the article: "At its peak, this is more than a four-ton
| force that one would have to apply to a quark to pull it out of
| the proton," Burkert explained.
| blueprint wrote:
| "Protons are built of three quarks that are bound together by the
| strong force."
|
| Except, not. The number of "quarks" isn't even a constant.
|
| https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-022-04998-2
| evanb wrote:
| The number of valence quarks is 3. Or, put in a more rigorous
| way, the baryon number of a proton is 1.
| blueprint wrote:
| so does that make the quote I included totally correct?
| jerf wrote:
| It makes your point hostile equivocation. If there is a
| reasonable definition that makes a statement correct and
| one that makes it incorrect, it is generally not advancing
| a conversation to assert that the incorrect definition is
| the one being used and then start berating people for using
| the wrong one. There are still perfectly reasonable senses
| in which one can say "protons are made of three quarks" and
| where that statement is as accurate as could be asked for
| at this level of detail.
| blueprint wrote:
| nice opinion but these materials can be used for teaching
| children.
|
| you might as well teach kids that particles actually
| exist independently or that gravity is made by mass. oh
| wait, we do!
|
| while you're at it, hammer years of decontextualized
| proofs into my kid's adolescent brain so he totally loses
| his taste for math.
|
| people deserve better, so, no, dude, it's not hostile
| equivocation, and i suspect you're actually projecting. i
| wonder what immediate reaction you have when people tell
| you you're participating in harming people, mr debate
| expert.
| ben_w wrote:
| I remember being a kid. I remember the other kids in
| school looking a diagram of how a moon orbits a planet
| that orbits a star and thinking it was a picture of a
| mouse. This was about age 6.
|
| In my teens I wanted to learn about computer graphics,
| took me a while (years) to find out that would be
| matrices and what they do to vectors. Fortunately, from
| what my niece says, this seems to have become a thing
| people can actually learn now in the UK during secondary
| school.
|
| The quantum wave functions necessary for it to even
| matter that a proton or neutron isn't literally just
| three quarks, involves maths I'm currently trying to
| teach myself on Brilliant.org having not at any point
| needed it despite having just turned 40.
|
| Bluntly, the only time I ever bother with anything more
| complex than the Bohr model is when I toy with ideas such
| as "what would it take for a Casimir cavity's negative
| energy effect to result in mass reduction exceeding the
| natural mass of the material it is made from?"[0] -- to
| which the answer at my level of comprehension is "not
| only is this not possible if you replaced every electron
| with a tauon, it still isn't going to work in a lasagna
| phase neutronium[1]".
|
| [0] AKA "can you use Casimir cavities to make a warp
| drive? No, no you cannot"
| https://kitsunesoftware.wordpress.com/2017/04/20/can-a-
| casim... -- though note also that I was using an
| extremely simplified version of the Casimir equation that
| I assume stops being a good approximation when the
| wavelengths being excluded imply energy sufficient for
| pair production events.
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_pasta
| rolph wrote:
| Evidence for intrinsic charm quarks in the proton
|
| "Here we provide evidence for intrinsic charm by exploiting
| a high-precision determination of the quark-gluon content
| of the nucleon3 based on machine learning and a large
| experimental dataset."
|
| https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-022-04998-2
|
| this is a tentative model of a Machine Learning "thought
| experiment". physical observation of the phenomenon must be
| confirmed before this is cannonized as scientific fact.
| evanb wrote:
| Stating the conserved quantity (baryon number = 1) makes it
| correct in a precise, meaningful way, even if it's not the
| whole story. Most people don't have the background to
| understand the subtleties of interacting quantum field
| theory.
| whatshisface wrote:
| The "number of quarks" has no possible interpretation as a
| well-defined, knowable quantity except that it would be three.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-01-28 23:01 UTC)