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

361–370 of 591 posts

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

#361

Post by awestroke »

coldtea wrote: post #359
hansbo wrote: post #356

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am reading this as "it has to be this way, or the model does not hold", but it does not explain why. What causes it? Consistency of a model cannot be the ultimate reason, right?

Not a physisist, but "consistency with the model" doesn't mean "because that's how some arbitrary model says it should be". It's more like: "Because we have arrived at a model that describes well most other aspect of those particles and their behavior, and has verified predictive power, and given the constrains and calculations based on that model, that's what its charge would be".

Still does not explain "why"

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

#363

Post by XorNot »

hansbo wrote: post #356
importantstuff wrote: post #336

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No one who has replied to your question has got the right answer. https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/21753/why-do-ele... has the right answer. There are multiple aspects to this argument, but essentially, the symmetries of your system force the charges in the Standard Model (quarks and leptons) to be the way they are due to gauge anomaly cancellation. If you believe in quark confinement, which is extremely w…

I am reading this as "it has to be this way, or the model does not hold", but it does not explain why. What causes it? Consistency of a model cannot be the ultimate reason, right?

Isn't the primary experimental argument beta decay from that link? A nucleus can emit a positron, and observably loses nuclear charge equal to one positive electron.

So by a pretty simple inferrence you could conclude the proton has a positive in it, hence the charge (it of course isn't literally like this for other reasons though).

And since we also observe antiprotons, the opposite can clearly apply.

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

#364

Post by volemo »

andrewflnr wrote: post #292
snowwrestler wrote: post #262

Earlier quoted context omitted.

String theory is supported by a ton of evidence in that it can produce many predictions and hypotheses that match observed data. That’s why it’s called a “theory” and why people continue to study it. What’s missing is a test that would produce evidence that would allow us to distinguish between string theory and competing theories. But that’s not nearly the same thing as saying it has “no real evidence.”

In fact that's exactly what I meant by saying it has "no real evidence". Otherwise you could claim the totality of the universe as evidence for your pet Theory of Everything as long as it's not actually falsified yet, including but not limited to a theory where fundamental particles are fairies who use slide rules to decide how to interact.

If you fairy theory predicts the outcomes as well as the other theories that are on the table now then indeed it belongs there with them until someone finds a way to distinguish them and prove one is a better model of the reality. Better yet if the fairy model makes the calculations "cleaner" and easier.

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

#365

Post by XorNot »

freetime2 wrote: post #338
Razengan wrote: post #267

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> AKA “God did it” + "Just for us" ^^ e.g. Earth is the only place where life could have formed. We have yet to set foot on even 1 another planet but we are pretty sure we are alone in the entire damn Universe.

This is an incredible misunderstanding of the Anthropic principle. It has nothing to do with god, it does not suggest that life could only exist on Earth, and it does not suggest that we are alone in the universe. If anything it's an argument against Intelligent Design. E.g. life is the statistical result of a vast universe (or multiverse) of permutations - some of which are not conducive to life, and some of which a…

i.e. the puddle thinking how fortunate it is that the ditch it is in is the perfect size for it.

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

#366

Post by chaxor »

awestroke wrote: post #361
coldtea wrote: post #359

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not a physisist, but "consistency with the model" doesn't mean "because that's how some arbitrary model says it should be". It's more like: "Because we have arrived at a model that describes well most other aspect of those particles and their behavior, and has verified predictive power, and given the constrains and calculations based on that model, that's what its charge would be".

Still does not explain "why"

I just would like to point out that "why" is not a scientific question. Feynman mentions this quite a lot. The question "why" doesn't have answers in science. A question of "How" has a better chance of being answered in science.

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

#367

Post by 15457345234 »

awestroke wrote: post #361
coldtea wrote: post #359

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not a physisist, but "consistency with the model" doesn't mean "because that's how some arbitrary model says it should be". It's more like: "Because we have arrived at a model that describes well most other aspect of those particles and their behavior, and has verified predictive power, and given the constrains and calculations based on that model, that's what its charge would be".

Still does not explain "why"

The 'why' is because 'it's what balances'

i.e. it's the only combination that works. A proton is a bunch of other particles that, when combined together, balance out an electron. The 'why' is 'because that's a stable configuration' in the same way that water at 25c is liquid not gas because the 'rules' of the local environment dictate that.

I mean, why do those particles exist at all? That's really what you're asking. Why do electrons exist, why do protons 'form' from subatomic particles to balance them out? Existential kinda question.

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

#368

Post by 15457345234 »

namaria wrote: post #340
Mauneam wrote: post #287

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Saying "because God did it" as an answer to any question has the same value as saying "because pixel cooked the music". If you want to consider those two groups of words "explanations" go for it. They are grammatically correct, and if they satisfy the curious mind they are good enough.

You keep insisting that 'anthropic principle' = 'god did it' when it's anything but. It's like you don't even read to the replies to your comments.

It's not uncommon now for people to use comment sections to deliver lectures, they already know what they want to say, they break it into multiple parts and they just paste it in assuming that other people will happily provide the right kind of conjugations. Good to point it out.

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

#369

Post by tauntz »

andoando wrote: post #323
lying4fun wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m going to entertain this literally because it’s fun: so we need to zoom out enough to find those big galaxy surrounding atoms which are actually universes, or conversely to zoom in more to find galaxies and a universe within atoms. But it seems that there’s either missing understanding how to cross that zoom in/out threshold or it’s impossible by the laws of physics to zoom so far to make a full circle, like it’s…

Yeah thats my thought too! What if there was a whole universe inside of an atom? Or on the other hand, we and everything we observe is just a single atom in a greater collection of atoms forming what is table to some other consciousness? I know I probably sound like a complete goon, but it makes a lot of sense to me. (I just watched the simpson video. haha, I thought I was being original)

Shower thought: maybe not even an atom but what if our "universe" is a short-lived quark or antiquark? For an observer in the "next level" universe, that quark would exist only for 10^-24 seconds (or whatever the lifetime of quarks is) but for us, that's the whole lifetime of the universe. And it's turtles all the way down indeed, with infinite universes all over the place..

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

#370

Post by ljosifov »

awestroke wrote: post #361
coldtea wrote: post #359

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not a physisist, but "consistency with the model" doesn't mean "because that's how some arbitrary model says it should be". It's more like: "Because we have arrived at a model that describes well most other aspect of those particles and their behavior, and has verified predictive power, and given the constrains and calculations based on that model, that's what its charge would be".

Still does not explain "why"

"Why" is more of a philosophy question, pre-scientific or a-scientific if you like. Science question would be "How". Maybe not this particular Q, but having in mind that on every A-answer, one can again ask Q-question "Why". That's more philosophy not so much science, imo.
Post reply on HN