Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Inside the proton, the ‘most complicated thing you could possibly imagine’

quantamagazine.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 591 posts

Re: Inside the proton, the ‘most complicated thing you could possibly imagine’

#121

Post by neuromanser »

mcmoor wrote: post #69
Rayhem wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I have no doubt quantum physicists know what they are talking about but...I always think it is the kind of excuse a schoolkid would give their teachers for their calculations being wrong. Just to emphasize how extreme this dichotomy is, not only is quantum mechanics correct (in that it's a predictive model), it's the most correct physical theory humans have ever devised in that the measurements there have more sign…

It's interesting that semiconductor engineers have to directly wrestle with the magic that's quantum tunneling. This theory is really not just a theory.

You mean it's not just a hypothesis.

I would really, really expect users of this site to know the difference.

Re: Inside the proton, the ‘most complicated thing you could possibly imagine’

#122

Post by calamari4065 »

a_gnostic wrote: post #95
wiml wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The quarks that make up a proton (or neutron, etc) have charges that are multiples of 1/3 the electron charge. So in one sense that is the real unit charge. But because as far as we know quarks can never exist in isolation we can only ever see particles with multiples of the electronic charge.

The number assigned to charge is an arbitrary convention. You could assign quarks with full numbered charges, instead of fractions, but you'd have to rework and recalculate all of physics and chemistry to get the new values right, and that's just too much work.

No matter what arbitrary value you assign to the electric charge, quarks will always be 1/3 of that. That's the problem in question, not the absolute value.

Re: Inside the proton, the ‘most complicated thing you could possibly imagine’

#123

Post by calamari4065 »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #91
andy_xor_andrew wrote: post #18

I just had a really stupid thought, after finishing reading the article. So, the electron is an elementary particle, right? Compared to the proton, the electron is "simple", yes? Despite this difference in complexity, an electron has a charge of -e and a proton has a charge of +e. They are exactly complementary regarding charge (if I am understanding right, I am not a smart person). my question is... why? why must pr…

> why must protons and electrons be perfectly complementary regarding charge? According to QED's spin origin of charge, it's because charge comes from spin. What values a particle's spin can take are restricted to certain integer or half-integer values.

That just deflects the question one level down without explaining anything.

"Because it is" is not a helpful answer to "why?"

Re: Inside the proton, the ‘most complicated thing you could possibly imagine’

#124

Post by malablaster »

Summary:

“The proton is an incredibly complex particle that physicists are still working to fully understand. Experiments over decades have revealed that the proton is not just three quarks, but contains a sea of transient gluons and quark-antiquark pairs. The HERA accelerator provided evidence of this "gluon dandelion" structure by detecting low-momentum quarks and antiquarks emerging from gluon splitting. Most recently, machine learning analysis of thousands of proton snapshots found traces of heavy charm quarks within the proton, suggesting its makeup is a quantum mixture of different quark states. Future experiments like the Electron-Ion Collider aim to map out the spins and 3D structure of quarks and gluons inside the proton.

One interesting finding highlighted is the recent discovery, through machine learning analysis of past proton data, that the proton contains traces of heavy charm quarks, implying its composition involves different quark combinations in a quantum superposition. This suggests the proton's makeup is more complex than previously understood.”

Re: Inside the proton, the ‘most complicated thing you could possibly imagine’

#125

Post by syrusakbary »

wwilim wrote: post #22
Smoosh wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe all the other instances crashed, but we got lucky and get to apply the anthropic principle. The real question is, are we running on bare metal, in a VM, or in a container?

It's all WebAssembly

hahaha as a founder working on the Wasm space, this made me giggle!

Re: Inside the proton, the ‘most complicated thing you could possibly imagine’

#126

Post by Balgair »

rolph wrote: post #105
gizmo686 wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This explains why atoms have 0 charge, but not why protons, which are stable even without electrons, have a charge of 1. Put in terms of elementary particles, why is it that the ratio of electric charge between a quark and an electron is either 1:3 or 2:3?

a proton, in the simplist version, is made of 3 quarks. two up quarks one down quark. down qwark is -1/3 e ; up quark is +2/3 e. they sum up to +1 e. neutrons are the opposite made of 3 quarks. two down quarks one up quark. and sum to 0e the unitary quantity is a conveinience. 1 e = 1.602176634×10−19 coulombs,

Yes, yes, I also understand this.

But why are they in units of 1/3(e).

Why are down quarks not -0.398390847895...(e) and up quarks not +0.6234098129034809234...(e). Why do they add up so damn neatly?

Re: Inside the proton, the ‘most complicated thing you could possibly imagine’

#127

Post by JumpCrisscross »

calamari4065 wrote: post #123
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> why must protons and electrons be perfectly complementary regarding charge? According to QED's spin origin of charge, it's because charge comes from spin. What values a particle's spin can take are restricted to certain integer or half-integer values.

That just deflects the question one level down without explaining anything. "Because it is" is not a helpful answer to "why?"

> deflects the question one level down without explaining anything

There’s a lot of levels to SOC. Which do you think is “because it is?”

If you’re asking why spin values are restricted, it’s in the spin-statistics theorem [1]. If you’re asking why spin causes charge, that’s SOC. There are lifetimes of understanding contained within those layers.

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spin–statistics_theorem

Re: Inside the proton, the ‘most complicated thing you could possibly imagine’

#128

Post by agloe_dreams »

robotnikman wrote: post #3

Had to re-read the Title for a sec. I thought it was referring to Proton, the compatibility layer software.

In fairness, the title probably matches. You go off and write a DirectX translation layer and make it work properly in an entirely different operating environment while matching DX quirks. Absurdly complex.

Re: Inside the proton, the ‘most complicated thing you could possibly imagine’

#129

Post by ravi-delia »

calamari4065 wrote: post #123
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> why must protons and electrons be perfectly complementary regarding charge? According to QED's spin origin of charge, it's because charge comes from spin. What values a particle's spin can take are restricted to certain integer or half-integer values.

That just deflects the question one level down without explaining anything. "Because it is" is not a helpful answer to "why?"

The question wasn't "why do protons have +1 charge", it was "why do protons have +1 charge, *considering electrons have -1 charge". The fact that possible charges are restricted to a few values is a much more satisfying answer to the latter than the former

Re: Inside the proton, the ‘most complicated thing you could possibly imagine’

#130

Post by mulmen »

rolph wrote: post #105
gizmo686 wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This explains why atoms have 0 charge, but not why protons, which are stable even without electrons, have a charge of 1. Put in terms of elementary particles, why is it that the ratio of electric charge between a quark and an electron is either 1:3 or 2:3?

a proton, in the simplist version, is made of 3 quarks. two up quarks one down quark. down qwark is -1/3 e ; up quark is +2/3 e. they sum up to +1 e. neutrons are the opposite made of 3 quarks. two down quarks one up quark. and sum to 0e the unitary quantity is a conveinience. 1 e = 1.602176634×10−19 coulombs,

How does 2/3 - 1/3 not sum to 1/3? 2-1 is 1, right? What am I missing?
Post reply on HN