Results 1 to 8 of 8

Thread: Are quarks illusions?

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    13,829

    Are quarks illusions?

    I get email alerts from New Scientist, and I realize that they are sometimes a little bit, let's say, enthusiastic in their reporting, and today I got one that says some theory implies that quarks may be illusions. Unfortunately, I don't have a subscription so I can't read beyond the first couple of paragraphs, which don't mention who is doing the research. Can anyone see the whole article and let me know whose theory this is? I could take a look in the bookstore.

    It certainly sounds intriguing.

    https://www.newscientist.com/article...may-not-exist/
    As above, so below

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    1,748
    Quote Originally Posted by Jens View Post
    I get email alerts from New Scientist, and I realize that they are sometimes a little bit, let's say, enthusiastic in their reporting, and today I got one that says some theory implies that quarks may be illusions. Unfortunately, I don't have a subscription so I can't read beyond the first couple of paragraphs, which don't mention who is doing the research. Can anyone see the whole article and let me know whose theory this is? I could take a look in the bookstore.

    It certainly sounds intriguing.

    https://www.newscientist.com/article...may-not-exist/
    Thanks for calling attention to that article. The pub is, as you say, often enthusiastic, but they have to grab us somehow. The article seems also to appear here:https://visiblesky.net/2019/10/03/wh...may-not-exist/

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Norfolk UK and some of me is in Northern France
    Posts
    8,718
    I just read the article which explains how Gel-Mann who was part of the “invention” of Quarks cautioned the interpretation. He was saying “it’s-a model” which may sound familiar. Indeed the properties of quarks, a name borrowed from James Joyce, hint at the model nature, up, down, colour, charm etc. “Illusion” may not be-the most helpful word but model hinting at a deeper structure seems closer. The article is actually about the missing quarks. These hint at various exotic interpretations of our universe and others. Maybe it’s all vibrations, but vibrations of what? I think I am not allowed to post the article, but I believe one can subscribe online.
    sicut vis videre esto
    When we realize that patterns don't exist in the universe, they are a template that we hold to the universe to make sense of it, it all makes a lot more sense.
    Originally Posted by Ken G

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    a long way away
    Posts
    10,742
    Searching by the author's name (Komargodski) brings up several potentially useful results, although nothing else aimed at the lay audience. For example: https://web.ma.utexas.edu/topqft/tal...omargodski.pdf

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Norfolk UK and some of me is in Northern France
    Posts
    8,718
    Glancing through that, way above my maths, but clearly a model with approximations, substitutions, difficult limits (singularities) , assumptions, analogies (spinning pancakes) it kind of stands out the quarks are not so simple as a typical proton diagram suggests. So “interpretation “ seems more accurate than illusion. The article makes it all more easy to understand, so good old New Scientist, still a weekly taste of science news. ( I subscribed all my life but no other connection)
    sicut vis videre esto
    When we realize that patterns don't exist in the universe, they are a template that we hold to the universe to make sense of it, it all makes a lot more sense.
    Originally Posted by Ken G

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Wisconsin USA
    Posts
    2,899
    Maybe a house of sheets is not as strong as a house of cards.
    The moment an instant lasted forever, we were destined for the leading edge of eternity.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Metrowest, Boston
    Posts
    4,754
    The 8 Fold Way successfully organized the baryons (heavy particles ) and mesons ( medium mass particles), into octets with regular quantized changes in their various properties of mass, spin, charge etc.. Similar in conception to the organization of different energy states of the hydrogen atom, one must remember that energy itself has inertia, or mass, (m = E/ c 2 )...and the quantized states of mass//energy of the simple hydrogen atom, are conceptually repeated as a higher energy version of quantized states of the structure of the proton and neutron making up the nuclei of atoms, and the mesons found to be ejected by them when those nuclei are excited.
    Murray GellMann and Yuval Neeman, and Abdus Salaam recognized that there was a decuplet of 10 to be found if they could search for the missing baryon...the Omega Minus. Its properties were exactly predicted, when it was found at Brookhaven in the 80 inch bubble chamber.
    No new quarks have been discovered since the Top. It is highly unlikely after decades of usefulness, that the quark model will be abandoned. Fine tuning of the Standard Model will continue a bit. This reminds me of the "superluminal neutrinos" that disappeared after the loose wires were found in the timing circuits in Italy.

    pete

    SEE:http://hep.uchicago.edu/~rosner/eight.pdf
    Last edited by trinitree88; 2019-Oct-25 at 07:42 PM. Reason: link

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    26,790
    Yes, it sounds like nothing more than the common mistake of thinking that physics theories are descriptions of what actually is, such that if any are exposed as being models instead of what actually is, then those must be put in a separate category and called "illusions." But as we should certainly know after thousands of years of this process, they're all models. Any type of particle is a model1, any velocity is a model2, any force is a model3. Models can be great, good, or of limited value, depending on context. So none of these things "actually are", and none of them are "illusions" either. The illusion is that science is not a process that uses whatever concepts it finds useful at various stages of that process! Come on people, the editors of New Scientist should know this by now.

    1And Heisenberg said "We will have to abandon the philosophy of Democritus and the concept of elementary particles. We should accept instead the concept of elementary symmetries."
    2Quantum mechanics taught us it is likely that nothing has a true velocity, because there is always uncertainty that seems fundamental. Zeno had a hint of this 2500 years ago.
    3Both the Lagrangian and Hamiltonian formulations of classical mechanics allow us to understand everything that happens without imagining that forces are real things, instead they are just mathematical constraints on something else that is regarded as the real causative agent. Shall I therefore write an article in New Scientist that "forces may be illusions" and pretend that is some kind of news?
    Last edited by Ken G; 2019-Oct-27 at 02:02 PM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •