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

What Is a Particle? (2020)

quantamagazine.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 196 posts

Re: What Is a Particle? (2020)

#31

Post by jophj »

ww520 wrote: post #24

That's why calling Higgs Boson the God particle is not quite right. It's the Higgs field that gives mass to the other particles, not the Boson. A Higgs Boson is just an excitation of the Higgs field; it doesn't give mass to other particles. In fact it's the Higgs field modifying the other fields causing their excitations (particles) to slow down when passing each other, thus gaining masses.

it was in fact called the "Goddamn Particle" originally, referring to how difficult it was to detect it. The name was changed later to "God Particle" for publishing reasons.

https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/God_particle

Re: What Is a Particle? (2020)

#32

Post by seiferteric »

khazhoux wrote: post #4

I'm honestly surprised that more people don't go mad in certain fields. If I ponder for 10 minutes the inexplicability of the universe's existence, or the vastness of space, my mind starts to breaks down.

Starting with the axiom that what I am experiencing is actually representative of reality to begin with.

Re: What Is a Particle? (2020)

#34

Post by gosub100 »

Biologist123 wrote: post #29

I feel a curious mix of excitement and disconcerted to discover humans don’t really understand what matter is. Reading the article, I understood so little of it. And I guess it’s because so much of the language is just words chosen through some sort of consensus to represent an abstract idea itself composed of such words-idea-representations which I’ve never encountered before.

There are about 16 particles in the standard model. We've only mastered the electron, proton, photon, and have dabbled in using neutrons and neutrinos. Imagine the possibilities if we some day are able to use all the remaining particles?

Re: What Is a Particle? (2020)

#35

Post by fragmede »

kayo_20211030 wrote: post #3

A particle is a thing you can "look" at, and say "that's a particle". It is whatever one says it is. They're not exactly discovered, they're invented. Fundamental in this context is not so much a word as it is an analogy. And, don't get me wrong, that doesn't mean particles don't exist. They do. But, a particle is whatever we say it is.

discovery vs invention is a question in mathematics as well. trying to say they're invented isn't clever, it's just a trick of language, like how gravity is merely a theory. particles are theorized to exist via theoretical physics and math, and then tested for experimentally. or as the saying goes, all models are wrong, some are useful.

Re: What Is a Particle? (2020)

#36

Post by michaelsbradley »

khazhoux wrote: post #4

I'm honestly surprised that more people don't go mad in certain fields. If I ponder for 10 minutes the inexplicability of the universe's existence, or the vastness of space, my mind starts to breaks down.

   When I consider your heavens,
   the work of your fingers,
   the moon and the stars,
   which you have set in place,
   what is mankind that you are mindful of them,
   human beings that you care for them?
   You have made them a little lower than the angels
   and crowned them with glory and honor.
   You made them rulers over the works of your hands;
   you put everything under their feet:
   all flocks and herds,
   and the animals of the wild,
   the birds in the sky,
   and the fish in the sea,
   all that swim the paths of the seas.
– Psalm 8:3-8

Re: What Is a Particle? (2020)

#37

Post by akira2501 »

Biologist123 wrote: post #29

I feel a curious mix of excitement and disconcerted to discover humans don’t really understand what matter is. Reading the article, I understood so little of it. And I guess it’s because so much of the language is just words chosen through some sort of consensus to represent an abstract idea itself composed of such words-idea-representations which I’ve never encountered before.

We understand matter perfectly well. Look at the size and scope of the engineering marvels that have been constructed on the surface of this planet and in our low orbit. It's astonishing.

What we don't understand is the fundamental structure of that matter or of our Universe. I personally feel that the people ostensibly "in charge" of this effort are a little chagrined at their decades of inability to produce not only a cohesive result but even a reasonable intermediate explanation that they intentionally couch these problems in the most arcane and impenetrable language available to them.

In any case, you shouldn't feel discontent for humanity, as we've simply discovered all the easy problems, cleverly worked out all the average problems, and now all we're left with is the intractably hard ones. It's very likely that a different type of effort we haven't engaged in yet will be necessary to make progress.

Re: What Is a Particle? (2020)

#38

Post by api »

khazhoux wrote: post #4

I'm honestly surprised that more people don't go mad in certain fields. If I ponder for 10 minutes the inexplicability of the universe's existence, or the vastness of space, my mind starts to breaks down.

The impression this article and many other things like it leaves me with is that we are struggling to get language and an abstractions out of our way.

We have to use them to talk about things and work with them, but they all “leak.”

Re: What Is a Particle? (2020)

#39

Post by interroboink »

gosub100 wrote: post #34
Biologist123 wrote: post #29

I feel a curious mix of excitement and disconcerted to discover humans don’t really understand what matter is. Reading the article, I understood so little of it. And I guess it’s because so much of the language is just words chosen through some sort of consensus to represent an abstract idea itself composed of such words-idea-representations which I’ve never encountered before.

There are about 16 particles in the standard model. We've only mastered the electron, proton, photon, and have dabbled in using neutrons and neutrinos. Imagine the possibilities if we some day are able to use all the remaining particles?

For some definition of "mastered" (:

If I recall correctly, the we can't really solve the equations for anything more complex than a helium atom (or is it hydrogen?). That's not to say there isn't useful work we can do, numerical approximations, etc. But things do get astoundingly complex very quickly, even with the "mastered" bits.

Re: What Is a Particle? (2020)

#40

Post by interroboink »

akira2501 wrote: post #37
Biologist123 wrote: post #29

I feel a curious mix of excitement and disconcerted to discover humans don’t really understand what matter is. Reading the article, I understood so little of it. And I guess it’s because so much of the language is just words chosen through some sort of consensus to represent an abstract idea itself composed of such words-idea-representations which I’ve never encountered before.

We understand matter perfectly well. Look at the size and scope of the engineering marvels that have been constructed on the surface of this planet and in our low orbit. It's astonishing. What we don't understand is the fundamental structure of that matter or of our Universe. I personally feel that the people ostensibly "in charge" of this effort are a little chagrined at their decades of inability to produce not onl…

I think there's a useful distinction to be made between "we understand it" and "we can make use of it." Certainly the latter is true, as you describe in your examples. I don't know that it implies the former, though.

I mean heck, even something as mundane as concrete is still the subject of active research as to the chemical reactions and complexities involved.

I guess it's more a spectrum of understanding than a yes/no situation.

For myself, I find it exciting to keep discovering how little we understand, despite our abilities. We seem to be barely a step removed from alchemy, from some points of view.

Post reply on HN