Ok video to summarize current theories. I’m still not onboard with quarks. As an experimentalist I don’t like a theory in which the primary participant, by design, is not able to be observed. The Standard Model is based on group theory which is a branch of math that “categorizes” symmetries. It’s very useful, but in the case of the SM doesn’t, to me, really give the actual physics. I once attended a seminar by a skeptical theorist who started out developing a quark model. What he didn’t tell the audience until the end it was a quark model for the solar system. Worked just as well as the Ptolemaic system, but hid the actual Newtonian/Einsteinian physics.
What is the actual physics? I’m guessing it will be revealed when QM and SR are reconciled, or a completely new picture emerges.
I’m encountering a new and somewhat disturbing phenomenon with my attempts at navigation in newneo-blog. My habit is generally to use the “recent comments” list of five at the near top right margin, where both last night and this morning I run into the problem. So, returning to the “recent comments” list I see a new comment by commeter “LL” in or under the title post “Trump announces reciprocal tariffs”. I click on that highlighted title expecting the window to load and load directly to the new post by “LL”.
The problem, or oddity causing my disturbance? A new window loads, sure enough, even loads the selected thread “Trump announces etc.”, but only loads to the top of the thread, and scrolling down to the bottom, only to the last entry at 7:28am by “Karmi”, with no “LL” post to be seen. That’s as of a few minutes ago. Last night I was encountering the same situation with posts by Huxley and Niketas (which posts were present this morning though not last night).
As I say, this is of a sudden onset and quite new phenomenon to me, so I remark it that it may be known to exist, rather than in any expectation that it should have to change.
sdferr – same here. I also use a lot of HTML, and recently it is not getting all the HTML I put in…yes, sometimes I make a mistake, but this is a new issue where it leaves off the closing of a HTML set.
is not able to be observed.
They are observed, but you won’t see an isolated quark outside of a proton or neutron. It isn’t that different than Rutherford discovering the nucleus by observing the scattering of alpha particles.
On the ytube video, I dunno how the rest of folks see it, but that still graphic of the cosmic-atom looks suspiciously like the plan view of a Reese’s peanutbutter cup to me. Mmmmmmm, reeeeeeese’s.
If the folks at DOGE want to look for wasteful spending, look no further than food stamps—EBT, Electronic Benefit Cards.
Chuck, how are they observed?? All we have is the postulate that a proton is made of 3 quarks. Yes, many scattering experiments say that this is so, but, as you say, no isolated quark is ALLOWED to be observed. Sorry, I don’t accept that. At the fundamental level a quark is part of the basis set of a symmetry group. So a proton can be described by a symmetry group. So what? That doesn’t imply that the basis set for that group is an actual physical entity unto itself rather than just a mathematical description of observed symmetries.
Yes, scattering experiments can imply the existence of the scattering center. Eventually we actually observed the nucleus. But when a theorist says I can’t actually observe an independent quark because of “confinement energy”, I’m not buying it.
As a follow up, Sabine just now put up a whopper of a video talking about how rotten high energy physics is:
When I came here, it didn’t show that there were comments. Then, I clicked on comments, and here we are.
Yahoo changed its email, again. It is terrible.
Very foggy here, high 20’s. Good day to stay in.
“Stop paying them” just might have a future, given half a chance.
So if they cant be observed its a hypothesis at this point
That doesn’t imply that the basis set for that group is an actual physical entity unto itself rather than just a mathematical description of observed symmetries.
As a non-physicist, but one who does mathematical modeling in another field, it sounds like the issue is testability. Is there any way that the experiments they run can reject the hypothesis? If not, then it’s not really scientific.
Jimmy,
The answer is unfortunately, yes and no. Many of the predictions based on quarks/Standard Model pan out experimentally. But, that doesn’t mean we have the right picture. I compare it to the pre-Copernican era where the Ptolemaic model of the solar system worked very well in predicting planet locations. And as better observations came out, the model was just adjusted to match the observations (more epicycles). And as new “particles” showed up in accelerators, some more quarks are added.
Then along came Copernicus/Kepler/Newton and blew the whole system that had worked for centuries away. I think we need a modern Copernicus for today.
• Danielle Sassoon, 38, resigned on Thursday as U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York rather than drop a criminal corruption case against Adams.
• Sassoon, a member of the deeply conservative Federalist Society, is a rising star in legal circles. Six others are said to have stood down including Assistant U.S. Attorney Hagan Scotten, another conservative legal hotshot and a Special Forces veteran.
• In her resignation letter, Sassoon name-checked her former mentor Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, a conservative icon.
• The actions of Bove have set off alarm bells from conservative commentators, with several outlets publishing editorials condemning the Trump DOJ.
Rule of Law is about who controls it – President Trump controls it for now…
@ physicsguy > “Many of the predictions based on quarks/Standard Model pan out experimentally. But, that doesn’t mean we have the right picture.”
@ Miguel > “So if they cant be observed its a hypothesis at this point”
Kind of like “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth…”?
From one who likes the Law of The Jungle.?
Or the Law of the Strongest ?
Nasty, brutish and short’ is a quotation from Thomas Hobbes’ book Leviathan, 1651 – not a firm of particularly unpleasant lawyers as some wags have suggested.
The fuller quotation of this phrase is even less appealing – “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short”. Hobbes described the natural state of mankind (the state pertaining before a central government is formed) as a “warre of every man against every man”. In the book he outlines the ‘incommodites’ of such a war: …”
The DOJ is under the control of the president – not just Trump, but any president, who also appoints the AG of his choice. So it’s not surprising that decisions about whom to prosecute – always a function of a prosecutor’s discretion rather than a merely random selection – would align with the will of the president and the AG. Those who work beneath them either do what they say or resign; they’re not supposed to go rogue. It is not the least bit surprising that some would resign.
Also, The Federalist Society is actually a group with a libertarian slant.
I don’t think anyone would allege that the rule of law means there is no bias in the law. One bias – probably an inevitable one – is prosecutorial discretion.
I’m telling this story from memory, so I’m sure I’ll screw some of it up, but here goes. One of my favorite science writers is a man named Chet Raymo. Professional astronomer – the real deal. If you ever get the notion to learn the night sky better than you currently do, buy his book “365 Starry Nights”. It looks like a children’s book (he does his own illustrations) but it is packed full of useful info, but I’m getting off topic. As a young astronomer interested in the history of science he was investigating the Ptolemaic system, and realized there were no longer any experts on it. He could not find a colleague who could school him on exactly how to go about applying it. So he set about learning it himself (easier said than done), and after a lot of self education was able to use it to predict where the planets should be. He was stunned at how accurate it was. He assumed he’d be able to demonstrate its wrongness with his backyard telescope. He couldn’t. He needed much more detailed observations than he could make personally to find any deviation from the modern system.
We studied Euclid first (all the books), only then moved on to the Almagest.
As a follow up, Sabine just now put up a whopper of a video talking about how rotten high energy physics is:
Yep. A scorcher must-see for those interested in the state of much physics research. Though I might make a broader generalization myself.
Sabine reads a letter from an anonymous friend, who has essentially counseled Sabine against blowing the cover of all those nice researchers who know their work isn’t serious science, but is rather a nice cushy income and lifestyle.
A shame if anything happened to those nice pleasant arrangements.
I’ve never seen Sabine quite so indignant and strange-looking. She’s in a mostly white room, huddled in thick black clothing, speaking into a large black microphone, with her eyes flashing.
It’s as though she’s speaking from a fugitive attic, as a representative of the Science Resistance, getting the message out.
“Ghostbusters” — Dan Ackroyd speaking to Bill Murray
Personally I like the university. They gave us money and for some reason we never had to produce anything.
You’ve never been out of college. You don’t know what it’s like out there.
I’ve been in the private sector. They expect results.
“If Ukraine is going to survive as a sovereign country, their best hope is to settle under conditions that will be a bitter pill now than face a collapse with a dwindling GDP, a government deficit that will lead to hyper-inflation and the continued exodus of Ukrainian citizens.”
“…at any time Europeans can take over…” @Brian E
• 100% agree.
• I’ll add that I do not share the “concerns” that are being floated about how this conflict is settled will impact possible future conflict in Europe.
• Prior to the conflict there had not been a significant attempt by Ukraine’s neighbors to closely align themselves with Ukraine (see EU, NATO). And that reminds me of how in our personal worlds we might be civil to a family in our neighborhood, club, etc., but that does mean that we wish to be close to them – due to their behavior – or to involve ourselves in their misfortunes.
• When terrorist states, drug cartels, corrupt nations, etc. prey on each other the USA should not reflexively get involved to prove our “values” – especially when it is obvious that the involved parties do not share our “values” (see Elections, Opposition Groups).
• Part of determining a nation’s Interest & Security is differentiating between the Conceptual and Actual. And the actual nations matter – even if that is not publicly stated. Again, pay attention to “Who” Ukraine was before the conflict, How Ukraine’s neighbors responded, and How Ukraine handled our assistance – reflection of “Who” they are – and know that that is part of the USA’ stance on how to end the conflict.
om & neo: don’t push humble me—else this developing chaotic mess will get placed under the Weak category on the Trump Tally list…
welcome to the party sabine, and ‘i’m shocked shocked gambling is going on here,
shouldnt science theories be replicable, yes confusing faith with scientific proof, is a category error,’
Here’s an article on the Adams case and what’s going on in the DOJ. Makes some sense to me. I had previously read that the charges against Adams were underwhelming.
Initially it was just mathematics, I attended a lecture by Serber in the mid sixties that took that approach, but by 1968 evidence began to show up at SLAC. I attended a talk by Gell-Mann about that time that was sort on the edge. It was an interesting talk, Gell Mann was wined and dined before, and he came in a bit ruddy, took off his coat and tie and tossed them on a chair, and began to speak. The audience included T.D. Lee, Rainwater, Lederman, and Schwarz and everyone had fun.
However, I think the scattering evidence for the particles is pretty definitive at this point. I don’t know what you think is missing from the picture. Feynman was OK with that interpretation of the data, even if he called them Partons.
A new way to look at the evolution of human life here on Earth, which may mean that intelligent life evolving on other planets may be more likely than the current dominant “hard-step” evolutionary theory posits.*
Read Kate’s post from RedState.com before you get wound up about
The Rule of Law
and political prosecutors.
Speaking of Ptolemaic theories, dark matter/energy fit right in. AFAIK no one has been able to find a particle or atom of them despite their being supposedly a large fraction of the mass in the universe. How long will it be until DOGE turns their attention to physics funding.
Leave a Reply
HTML tags allowed in your
comment: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>
Ok video to summarize current theories. I’m still not onboard with quarks. As an experimentalist I don’t like a theory in which the primary participant, by design, is not able to be observed. The Standard Model is based on group theory which is a branch of math that “categorizes” symmetries. It’s very useful, but in the case of the SM doesn’t, to me, really give the actual physics. I once attended a seminar by a skeptical theorist who started out developing a quark model. What he didn’t tell the audience until the end it was a quark model for the solar system. Worked just as well as the Ptolemaic system, but hid the actual Newtonian/Einsteinian physics.
What is the actual physics? I’m guessing it will be revealed when QM and SR are reconciled, or a completely new picture emerges.
I’m encountering a new and somewhat disturbing phenomenon with my attempts at navigation in newneo-blog. My habit is generally to use the “recent comments” list of five at the near top right margin, where both last night and this morning I run into the problem. So, returning to the “recent comments” list I see a new comment by commeter “LL” in or under the title post “Trump announces reciprocal tariffs”. I click on that highlighted title expecting the window to load and load directly to the new post by “LL”.
The problem, or oddity causing my disturbance? A new window loads, sure enough, even loads the selected thread “Trump announces etc.”, but only loads to the top of the thread, and scrolling down to the bottom, only to the last entry at 7:28am by “Karmi”, with no “LL” post to be seen. That’s as of a few minutes ago. Last night I was encountering the same situation with posts by Huxley and Niketas (which posts were present this morning though not last night).
As I say, this is of a sudden onset and quite new phenomenon to me, so I remark it that it may be known to exist, rather than in any expectation that it should have to change.
sdferr – same here. I also use a lot of HTML, and recently it is not getting all the HTML I put in…yes, sometimes I make a mistake, but this is a new issue where it leaves off the closing of a HTML set.
is not able to be observed.
They are observed, but you won’t see an isolated quark outside of a proton or neutron. It isn’t that different than Rutherford discovering the nucleus by observing the scattering of alpha particles.
On the ytube video, I dunno how the rest of folks see it, but that still graphic of the cosmic-atom looks suspiciously like the plan view of a Reese’s peanutbutter cup to me. Mmmmmmm, reeeeeeese’s.
If the folks at DOGE want to look for wasteful spending, look no further than food stamps—EBT, Electronic Benefit Cards.
* See https://www.youtube.com/watch? v=Co7BywoZE1c
and see also https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fR8zKOI1my4
*
Chuck, how are they observed?? All we have is the postulate that a proton is made of 3 quarks. Yes, many scattering experiments say that this is so, but, as you say, no isolated quark is ALLOWED to be observed. Sorry, I don’t accept that. At the fundamental level a quark is part of the basis set of a symmetry group. So a proton can be described by a symmetry group. So what? That doesn’t imply that the basis set for that group is an actual physical entity unto itself rather than just a mathematical description of observed symmetries.
Yes, scattering experiments can imply the existence of the scattering center. Eventually we actually observed the nucleus. But when a theorist says I can’t actually observe an independent quark because of “confinement energy”, I’m not buying it.
As a follow up, Sabine just now put up a whopper of a video talking about how rotten high energy physics is:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=shFUDPqVmTg
When I came here, it didn’t show that there were comments. Then, I clicked on comments, and here we are.
Yahoo changed its email, again. It is terrible.
Very foggy here, high 20’s. Good day to stay in.
“Stop paying them” just might have a future, given half a chance.
So if they cant be observed its a hypothesis at this point
Those words you are using
https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1890064736123011335?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1jh5X3rYQXg
==
Betsy Palmer was lovely.
That doesn’t imply that the basis set for that group is an actual physical entity unto itself rather than just a mathematical description of observed symmetries.
As a non-physicist, but one who does mathematical modeling in another field, it sounds like the issue is testability. Is there any way that the experiments they run can reject the hypothesis? If not, then it’s not really scientific.
Jimmy,
The answer is unfortunately, yes and no. Many of the predictions based on quarks/Standard Model pan out experimentally. But, that doesn’t mean we have the right picture. I compare it to the pre-Copernican era where the Ptolemaic model of the solar system worked very well in predicting planet locations. And as better observations came out, the model was just adjusted to match the observations (more epicycles). And as new “particles” showed up in accelerators, some more quarks are added.
Then along came Copernicus/Kepler/Newton and blew the whole system that had worked for centuries away. I think we need a modern Copernicus for today.
Right-wing media turn on Trump as Bondi goes scorched earth on conservative staff for refusing to bow to Eric Adams demands – less than a month into Trump’s second term ‘n here are some snippets:
Rule of Law is about who controls it – President Trump controls it for now…
@ physicsguy > “Many of the predictions based on quarks/Standard Model pan out experimentally. But, that doesn’t mean we have the right picture.”
@ Miguel > “So if they cant be observed its a hypothesis at this point”
Kind of like “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth…”?
Especially for huxley:
https://notthebee.com/article/chatgpt-admits-christianity-is-true-in-shocking-response
Oh Noes! The Dread Rule Of Law!
From one who likes the Law of The Jungle.?
Or the Law of the Strongest ?
https://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/nasty-brutish-and-short.html
Karmi:
The DOJ is under the control of the president – not just Trump, but any president, who also appoints the AG of his choice. So it’s not surprising that decisions about whom to prosecute – always a function of a prosecutor’s discretion rather than a merely random selection – would align with the will of the president and the AG. Those who work beneath them either do what they say or resign; they’re not supposed to go rogue. It is not the least bit surprising that some would resign.
Also, The Federalist Society is actually a group with a libertarian slant.
I don’t think anyone would allege that the rule of law means there is no bias in the law. One bias – probably an inevitable one – is prosecutorial discretion.
I’m telling this story from memory, so I’m sure I’ll screw some of it up, but here goes. One of my favorite science writers is a man named Chet Raymo. Professional astronomer – the real deal. If you ever get the notion to learn the night sky better than you currently do, buy his book “365 Starry Nights”. It looks like a children’s book (he does his own illustrations) but it is packed full of useful info, but I’m getting off topic. As a young astronomer interested in the history of science he was investigating the Ptolemaic system, and realized there were no longer any experts on it. He could not find a colleague who could school him on exactly how to go about applying it. So he set about learning it himself (easier said than done), and after a lot of self education was able to use it to predict where the planets should be. He was stunned at how accurate it was. He assumed he’d be able to demonstrate its wrongness with his backyard telescope. He couldn’t. He needed much more detailed observations than he could make personally to find any deviation from the modern system.
We studied Euclid first (all the books), only then moved on to the Almagest.
As a follow up, Sabine just now put up a whopper of a video talking about how rotten high energy physics is:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=shFUDPqVmTg
–physicsguy
Yep. A scorcher must-see for those interested in the state of much physics research. Though I might make a broader generalization myself.
Sabine reads a letter from an anonymous friend, who has essentially counseled Sabine against blowing the cover of all those nice researchers who know their work isn’t serious science, but is rather a nice cushy income and lifestyle.
A shame if anything happened to those nice pleasant arrangements.
I’ve never seen Sabine quite so indignant and strange-looking. She’s in a mostly white room, huddled in thick black clothing, speaking into a large black microphone, with her eyes flashing.
It’s as though she’s speaking from a fugitive attic, as a representative of the Science Resistance, getting the message out.
“Ghostbusters” — Dan Ackroyd speaking to Bill Murray
Personally I like the university. They gave us money and for some reason we never had to produce anything.
You’ve never been out of college. You don’t know what it’s like out there.
I’ve been in the private sector. They expect results.
–“Ghostbusters on Academia vs. the Private Sector”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4394VCS7POE
• 100% agree.
• I’ll add that I do not share the “concerns” that are being floated about how this conflict is settled will impact possible future conflict in Europe.
• Prior to the conflict there had not been a significant attempt by Ukraine’s neighbors to closely align themselves with Ukraine (see EU, NATO). And that reminds me of how in our personal worlds we might be civil to a family in our neighborhood, club, etc., but that does mean that we wish to be close to them – due to their behavior – or to involve ourselves in their misfortunes.
• When terrorist states, drug cartels, corrupt nations, etc. prey on each other the USA should not reflexively get involved to prove our “values” – especially when it is obvious that the involved parties do not share our “values” (see Elections, Opposition Groups).
• Part of determining a nation’s Interest & Security is differentiating between the Conceptual and Actual. And the actual nations matter – even if that is not publicly stated. Again, pay attention to “Who” Ukraine was before the conflict, How Ukraine’s neighbors responded, and How Ukraine handled our assistance – reflection of “Who” they are – and know that that is part of the USA’ stance on how to end the conflict.
om & neo: don’t push humble me—else this developing chaotic mess will get placed under the Weak category on the Trump Tally list…
welcome to the party sabine, and ‘i’m shocked shocked gambling is going on here,
shouldnt science theories be replicable, yes confusing faith with scientific proof, is a category error,’
Here’s an article on the Adams case and what’s going on in the DOJ. Makes some sense to me. I had previously read that the charges against Adams were underwhelming.
https://redstate.com/streiff/2025/02/15/im-your-huckleberry-the-showdown-at-the-doj-corral-is-bigger-than-the-nyc-mayors-corruption-charges-n2185626
But, that doesn’t mean we have the right picture.
Initially it was just mathematics, I attended a lecture by Serber in the mid sixties that took that approach, but by 1968 evidence began to show up at SLAC. I attended a talk by Gell-Mann about that time that was sort on the edge. It was an interesting talk, Gell Mann was wined and dined before, and he came in a bit ruddy, took off his coat and tie and tossed them on a chair, and began to speak. The audience included T.D. Lee, Rainwater, Lederman, and Schwarz and everyone had fun.
However, I think the scattering evidence for the particles is pretty definitive at this point. I don’t know what you think is missing from the picture. Feynman was OK with that interpretation of the data, even if he called them Partons.
A new way to look at the evolution of human life here on Earth, which may mean that intelligent life evolving on other planets may be more likely than the current dominant “hard-step” evolutionary theory posits.*
* See https://www.popsci.com/science/alien-intelligence-likely/
Karmi:
I quake at you’re (not your) Weak threat.
Read Kate’s post from RedState.com before you get wound up about
and political prosecutors.
Speaking of Ptolemaic theories, dark matter/energy fit right in. AFAIK no one has been able to find a particle or atom of them despite their being supposedly a large fraction of the mass in the universe. How long will it be until DOGE turns their attention to physics funding.