Do Alternative Explanations for Gluons Exist and How Can We Test Them?

[Cody Livengood]

Well learn Quantum Field Theory then.

Being a physics major that works for Boeing's Defense, Space and Security division and after nearly a decade of studying physics on my own, I'm very familiar with QFT. However, I'm attempting to question the results of the experimental observation in terms of how its physical actions match the theory non-mathematically.

This is really the bottom line.

@Cody Livengood I think that you still need to look into your own understanding of science. You are already aware of the evidence. But for some reason you want to hold this specific piece of evidence to a different standard. To me, that indicates that you have a problem with the scientific method, or you have some difficulty applying it consistently.

I just believe there's a better explanation for the observation, and that the other explanation seems to describe it better - or at least more simply. But we can't really discus that here.

 

[PeroK]

That's honestly not good enough for me. I want to understand what is physically going on.

The modern viewpoint is that this is not possible. In the sense that we can only understand elementary particles through mathematical models. From that point of view gluons and quarks only exist in the sense that they are part of the simplest model. Simple is relative here.

It would be nice to think that there may be a simpler model than QCD - I believe Feynman spent much of his later years trying to find one - but perhaps it's becoming more likely that what we have is as simpler as it gets. In any case, the current QCD remains the simplest model that explains all the known phenomena.

 

[PeterDonis]

I just believe there's a better explanation for the observation, and that the other explanation seems to describe it better - or at least more simply. But we can't really discus that here.

Indeed we can't. Basically you are not asking for more information about the standard explanation; you are simply asserting that you have a better one. Which is out of bounds for discussion here.

Thread closed.

 

[Dale]

I just believe there's a better explanation for the observation, and that the other explanation seems to describe it better - or at least more simply.

Sorry @PeterDonis I am going to add one PS post.

The mere existence of another possible explanation for the same data doesn't invalidate the standard explanation. To invalidate the standard explanation would require substantially more. Specifically, to invalidate the standard explanation requires there to be (1) a possible experiment where the two explanations disagree quantitatively, and then (2) for the data to be inconsistent with the standard explanation and consistent with the new explanation. Currently there is no alternative model that meets both of those criteria.

Although I am sure that you have your reasons for liking your "better explanation", most likely that explanation does not even meet (1). By far, the vast majority of "explanations" that are found outside of the professional scientific literature are "not even wrong" meaning that they don't even make falsifiable predictions that can be quantitatively compared to experiment to see if they are wrong. I.e. they do not meet criterion (1).