Are quarks inside nucleus naturally entangled?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the nature of quarks within protons and neutrons, specifically whether they are naturally entangled and the implications of such entanglement for multiple hadrons in a nucleus. The scope includes theoretical considerations and conceptual clarifications regarding quantum entanglement and coherence in particle physics.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions whether quarks within protons or neutrons are always entangled and seeks to understand the conditions under which they may lose or reestablish entanglement.
  • Another participant suggests that quarks within a hadron share a coherent wavefunction due to their non-observable nature, implying that if hadrons are coherent, so are their quarks.
  • A participant expresses skepticism about the reliability of another's claims based on their perceived history in discussions about Bell's Theorem, indicating a concern for the credibility of the argument presented.
  • One participant attempts to connect the concept of superposition and mass, questioning how quarks' kinetic energy contributes to body weight, while also grappling with the philosophical implications of mass existing without a defined position.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on whether quarks are always entangled or the implications of their entanglement for multiple hadrons. There are competing views regarding the nature of coherence and entanglement in the context of quantum mechanics.

Contextual Notes

Some statements rely on assumptions about the nature of measurement and observation in quantum mechanics, and there are unresolved questions regarding the relationship between kinetic energy and mass in the context of particle physics.

Varon
Messages
547
Reaction score
1
Are quarks that made up a proton or neutron naturally entangled at all times? If not. When do they lose entanglement or reestablish entanglement?

If they are always entangled. How about between two protons/neutrons or more. Are they all entangled?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Entangled, I guess, is one of the latest buzzwords. Emergent is the other. The quarks within a hadron are not individually observable, and as a result they share a coherent wavefunction. As for two or more hadrons, if the hadrons themselves are coherent, then so are the quarks. This would apply to the protons and neutrons in a nucleus. It would not apply to the debris resulting from a high-energy collision where you can track the individual pieces.
 
Bill_K said:
Entangled, I guess, is one of the latest buzzwords. Emergent is the other. The quarks within a hadron are not individually observable, and as a result they share a coherent wavefunction. As for two or more hadrons, if the hadrons themselves are coherent, then so are the quarks. This would apply to the protons and neutrons in a nucleus. It would not apply to the debris resulting from a high-energy collision where you can track the individual pieces.

Are you the same Bill who is anti Bell's Theorem/Aspect experiments who loved to debate with DrChinese? I need to know so I can gauge the reliability of what you are saying above. Hope others can confirm it.
 
I'm not the person you describe, Varon, I don't enter lengthy debates with anyone. I encourage you to think about what I said and not worry about who you think said them. Posting an answer your question is something I did voluntarily.
 
Bill_K said:
Entangled, I guess, is one of the latest buzzwords. Emergent is the other. The quarks within a hadron are not individually observable, and as a result they share a coherent wavefunction. As for two or more hadrons, if the hadrons themselves are coherent, then so are the quarks. This would apply to the protons and neutrons in a nucleus. It would not apply to the debris resulting from a high-energy collision where you can track the individual pieces.

So this proves that during superposition when particles don't have properties like positions, mass exists as the kinetic energy of the quarks contribute to the weight of a person body in addition to Higgs coupling. Say if I'm 150 lbs. Does any knows how many lbs does the kinetic energy of the quarks contribute to my body weight?

Bohr said that in the absense of measurement to determine its position, the particle has no position. But it definitely has mass. I just can't imagine how something can have no position but has mass. Any tips how to imagine it?
 

Similar threads

High School Can virtual particles turn into real particles? (news about new study)
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Undergrad Decay constant of Different Elements and Isotopes?
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
High School What is made up of all the rest quarks?
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
High School Could you help me understand this paper on the "European Muon Collaboration" effect?
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
Undergrad Would higher-mass quarks result in smaller baryons?
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
Undergrad Is Toponium a Reality Despite Top Quark's Rapid Decay?
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
Undergrad Strange quarks, Strange stars and Strangelets?
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
Graduate Distribution of protons inside a large nucleus
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
Graduate Why Proton & Neutron Contain 3 Quarks - Not 2 or 4?
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
Undergrad Separation energy of nucleons and Coulomb barrier
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K