Live data from Hacker News

Inside the proton, the ‘most complicated thing you could possibly imagine’ (2022)

quantamagazine.org

51–60 of 67 posts

Re: Inside the proton, the ‘most complicated thing you could possibly imagine’ (2022)

#51
post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If i remember correctly Feynman said in one of his lectures that we know the mass of the electron with much greater precision than the proton, which may mean that it electrons are easier to study. I don't know if this is still true though.

Oh yes and so much so! Electrons are point-like (not composite like a proton) and interact only electroweakly (not strongly).

> point-like

Oh, your going to love this theory.

https://fondationlouisdebroglie.org/AFLB-222/MARK.TEX2.pdf

In summary, There is a way to model electrons as a twisted self enclosed em field.

A decent digest summary of the paper is this video

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hYyrgDEJLOA (Huygens Optics: Are Electrons made of Light? )

Re: Inside the proton, the ‘most complicated thing you could possibly imagine’ (2022)

#53

So if we understand the internal differences between protons and neutrons, what’s the practical application? Turning neutrons into protons with low energies - alchemy?

Neutrons turn spontaneously into protons, which is called beta decay, and which happens in any nucleus with too many neutrons. This includes the free neutrons, which decay into protons in minutes.

Neutrons and protons differ in their composition, a neutron being made of 2 d quarks + 1 u quark, while a proton is made of 1 d quark + 2 u quarks, much in the same way as a nucleus of tritium differs from a nucleus of helium 3, the former being made of 2 neutrons + 1 proton, while the latter is made of 1 neutron + 2 protons.

For the strong interactions, nucleons (i.e. protons and neutrons) and nuclei are analogous to what atoms and molecules are for the electromagnetic interaction.

The strong interaction attempts to neutralize the hadronic charge (a.k.a. color charge), while the electromagnetic interaction attempts to neutralize the electric charge.

To a first approximation, the hadronic charge is neutralized in nucleons and the electric charge is neutralized in atoms.

However, because of the movement of the quarks inside of a nucleon and of the electrons inside an atom, the neutralization of the charge is imperfect and there remain some residual forces of attraction, respectively strong and electromagnetic, which bind the nucleons into nuclei and the atoms into molecules. Because they are just residual forces, the binding forces between nucleons in a nucleus are much weaker than those between quarks in a nucleon, similarly to how the binding forces between atoms in a molecule are much weaker than those that bind most of the electrons to the nucleus in an atom.

Re: Inside the proton, the ‘most complicated thing you could possibly imagine’ (2022)

#54

When I was a physics student, there were four forces: strong, weak, EM, and gravity. That picture seemed neat and clean. Strong kept the nucleus together, EM kept molecules and atoms together (or broke them apart), gravity kept astronomical bodies together, weak was some kind of momentum-accounting device. Recently, GPT informed me that the strong force is really a tiny after-effect of the "QCD force" (in the same wa…

"QCD force" is the same thing as the "strong" force. There is no reason whatsoever to invent any new name.

There are several hierarchical levels at which the strong interaction and the electromagnetic interaction bind the components of matter.

The electromagnetic interaction attempts to neutralize the electric charge. To a first approximation this is achieved in atoms. The residual forces caused by imperfect neutralization bind atoms in molecules. Even between molecules there remain some even weaker residual attraction forces, which are the Van der Waals forces, which are thus at the third hierarchical level.

For the strong interaction, there are only 2 hierarchical levels, approximate charge neutralization is achieved in nucleons, which are bound by residual attractive forces into nuclei.

So the forces between the nucleons of a nucleus correspond to the inter-atomic forces from inside a molecule, not to the Van der Waals forces between molecules.

Re: Inside the proton, the ‘most complicated thing you could possibly imagine’ (2022)

#55
post #50
post #33

I've heard this quote before, and I don't get it. This article fails to show me just how complicated that is. When I think "complicated," I think of a multiplicity of interconnected chemical molecular processes like what must happen in the cell, or layers of recursively connected neurons in the brain. Not some mindless cloud of gluons. What they've described seems less "complicated" and more "confusing." "We don't un…

It's complex in a physicist's sense of the word: the equations are hopelessly complicated to solve even in very simple cases. This means it's hard to build intuition or describe in simple terms. Quantum chromodynamics is actually pretty similar to Maxwell's equations of electromagnetism. The big difference is that unlike photos, gluons interact with each other. This means goodbye to linear equations and simple planew…

I wonder if it is inherently complex in an information-theory framework, or that we simply haven’t yet found its “natural” basis under which its description is most succinct?

Re: Inside the proton, the ‘most complicated thing you could possibly imagine’ (2022)

#56
post #17

[flagged]

One thing I've always wondered about is why crazy people are always fixated on quantum physics and then vague musical terms like "resonances". LLMs do the same thing when they develop psychosis* except GPT also starts talking about "recursion" and Claude starts trying to enter nirvana. * historical term "going Rampant"

Your personal insult aside, resonance is a fundamental term in physics and harmonic oscillators are fundamental to quantum field theory and modern physics. Music was a metaphor- this isn’t Nature.

Re: Inside the proton, the ‘most complicated thing you could possibly imagine’ (2022)

#57
post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Neutrons are not that different from protons. The decay from neutrons to protons is pretty well understood, and there’s no reason to think that the nature of quark/gluon interactions in a neutron are significantly different from those in a proton. What kind of new physics are you imagining we’d get? Of course more experimental data is a good thing, but in this case it doesn’t seem obvious that it would lead to anythi…

Why do you say they're "pretty well understood" when there's been a long-standing unresolved discrepancy between lifetime measurement techniques?

The same QCD theory that's used to model the proton models the neutron. Theoretically, our understanding of both is on the same footing.

The comment I replied to talked about "new physics". That's a term that's used in physics to describe physics beyond the Standard Model. Better experimental data about neutron internals could certainly help constrain the neutron lifetime, but that would be likely to be experimental constraints on existing physics, not new physics in the sense that the term is normally used.

Re: Inside the proton, the ‘most complicated thing you could possibly imagine’ (2022)

#59
Electrons are bits: Minimal structure, maximal fungibility.

Protons are WASM modules: Portable, sandboxed, rich internals, stable interface.

Neutrons are headless WASM: Same runtime, no external API, harder to drive or inspect.

Nuclei are Kubernetes: Orchestration, emergent behavior, scheduling, binding energy as overhead.

QCD is the runtime: One spec, wildly different behavior depending on scale.

Experiments are profilers: You never see the code, only traces, distributions, hotspots.

HN comments are undefined behavior and non-renormalizable noise: Unconstrained interactions, long-range correlations, destroyed predictability.

Re: Inside the proton, the ‘most complicated thing you could possibly imagine’ (2022)

#60
post #55
post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's complex in a physicist's sense of the word: the equations are hopelessly complicated to solve even in very simple cases. This means it's hard to build intuition or describe in simple terms. Quantum chromodynamics is actually pretty similar to Maxwell's equations of electromagnetism. The big difference is that unlike photos, gluons interact with each other. This means goodbye to linear equations and simple planew…

I wonder if it is inherently complex in an information-theory framework, or that we simply haven’t yet found its “natural” basis under which its description is most succinct?

My thinking as well.

How could something so remarkably stable and functionally indistinguishable among its peers also be so complex?

Post reply on HN