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

[berkeman]

After some Moderation chores, the thread is reopened.

 

[Motore]

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

Start with these:
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1012.2288.pdf
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1501.04794.pdf
https://pdg.lbl.gov/2011/reviews/rpp2011-rev-qcd.pdf

Then come back with the acquired knowledge and let us know what you don't understand or it's hard for you to grasp.

 

[Ibix]

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

Then you need to learn enough maths to understand QFT. Please don't confuse "I personally don't understand the models" with "the models don't explain anything".

All physical models are mathematical. It should be unsurprising that language developed for one ape to be able to tell another ape where the tasty fruit is doesn't really cut it for describing the basic structure of the universe. We use maths to describe physics because it seems to be the best tool for the job.

You may also need to read a bit on positivism, since "all knowledge is conditional, and people use the models that best predict reality" seems to have come as a nasty shock to you.

Posting this because I wrote it before the thread closure and it was still in draft. I think I've said all I'm going to say on this topic.

 

[Dale]

We do not have any mathematical models that make correct predictions and do not include gluons.

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.

 

[PeterDonis]

I could say that it supports the idea that it was produced by three quantum vortexes linked in a ring or that the three jets were produced just by the three quarks and I could say that the experiment "supports the idea."

No, you can't just say these things. You have to demonstrate these things, by showing your theoretical model and calculating what it predicts. That's what the scientists who developed QCD have done. They didn't just "say" that the experiments show gluon events. They calculated, in numerical detail to many decimal places, the exact predictions of their model and compared them with the experimental results. All of this has been in published peer-reviewed papers for decades, and in textbooks for almost as long. It's accessible to anyone who is willing to do the work of reading and understanding. Either you are willing to do that work, or you aren't. And if you aren't, then asking for an "explanation" is simply out of line; it's like a person who says they want to be a concert pianist, but who doesn't want to practice. There are no shortcuts.

 

[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).