Hacker News Reader

Comment by computerex | Hacker News Reader

There is an entire theory that describes the strong interactions inside the proton. Please take a look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_chromodynamics and experimental evidence for QCD: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_chromodynamics#Experim...

Furthermore particle accelerators have been smashing protons for a long time to probe what's happening inside. The standard model of particle physics is validated by evidence and experiments. I don't think it is fair to say that we don't know what is happening inside a proton. There are many questions in physics still left unanswered but I don't think anyone would classify this as such.

View on HN

How many constants are required by the standard model to make the math work? Doesn't that admit something is unsolved? I think it's probably accurate to say we don't know much about subatomic physics and because of the scale/measurability problem might not ever. The same is true of the expansiveness of the universe.

Fewer than thirty, I think. Which is pretty good for a model that accurately encompasses so many phenomena.

Why do you say we don't know much about subatomic physics? In your view, how would things be different if we did know "much"?

There wouldn't be 30 constants. The math is being made to fit something without explaining it.

"Hurr durr, your physics isn't pretty enough and has too many coefficients to fit my childlike model of the universe. Clearly an approximation" - mimixco, 2020

We'd live in the Diamond Age. The molecular nanotechnology vision of the world would be true. Eg. we could create any material with the characteristics we wanted. Uncertainty wouldn't matter because there would be no compound uncertainty / decoherence. If some sub-process step in mnt fabrication failed because of inherent uncertainty, it could simply be repeated until it worked. We'd also understand how to build the tools to do this.

We already live in the diamond age. Maybe you haven't been paying attention.

If we had such a "very good" understanding they wouldn't be spending billions to build the Electron-Ion collider at Brookhaven. Here's a good article about it, that's much more balanced than the QCD slanted wikipedia article: https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/07/scientists-endorse-b...

I especially like this bit about qcd:

> The mess is so complex that even basic properties of the proton remain unexplained. For example, its three quarks account for less than 5% of its mass, the rest arising somehow from energy of the virtual quarks and gluons.

This video explains where the mass of a proton comes from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ztc6QPNUqls

Based on your comments above, though, I don't think watching this would change your opinion about anything. People have been more than polite in trying to help you fix your misunderstandings, but you refuse to absorb any new information or change your views when presented with new data.

I think you need to consider a few things.

1. A good understanding of something's basic/fundamental properties doesn't mean that there isn't other more meaningful research to be done and knowledge to be gained.

2. Particle physics in general is considered a mess. There are still many open problems in particle physics and a shiny new accelerator never hurts ;)

Sure there is still a lot more to learn about the inner structure of protons/neutrons but that doesn't mean that we don't have a decent understanding of the overall picture. There still isn't one unified theory that explains all the natural forces, but that doesn't mean that we don't understand gravity/electromagnetism/strong/weak forces in their own right.

How hard is it to understand that the mass of a proton isn't just because its constituent quarks have mass?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com