Why do quarks prefer to live on top of fluctuating gluon fields?

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

This discussion centers on the behavior of quarks in relation to fluctuating gluon fields, specifically within the context of Quantum Field Theory (QFT). Participants reference animations illustrating the energy density of gluon fields, which depict a lumpy structure in the vacuum state of Quantum Chromodynamics (QCD). The conversation highlights the need for mathematical references to substantiate claims about quarks residing on these energy fluctuations, as videos alone are deemed insufficient for scientific discourse.

PREREQUISITES
  • Quantum Field Theory (QFT)
  • Quantum Chromodynamics (QCD)
  • Understanding of gluon fields and their properties
  • Familiarity with particle physics terminology
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the mathematical framework of Quantum Chromodynamics (QCD)
  • Explore the concept of action density in gluon fields
  • Study the implications of vacuum states in Quantum Field Theory
  • Investigate the role of APE smearing in visualizing gluon fields
USEFUL FOR

Physicists, students of particle physics, and anyone interested in the dynamics of quarks and gluon fields in Quantum Field Theory.

FallenApple
Messages
564
Reaction score
61
So below is an animation of a quantum field's energy density fluctuating. Specifically, a gluon field.
ActionAPE5LQanimXs30.gif


So the empty spots are not truly empty but where the field is at the lowest energy. I saw a video from veritasium stating that the quarks are likely to live on top of those lumps. Why?

And another question is that what are those lumps? In QFT, high excitations of field energy results in particles. So are there gluon particles there? It seems not as the animation is about the gluon field in vacuum, not particles.

And finally, if there are no gluon particles where those lumps are, then why would quarks want to be there?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Do you want to tell us where this comes from?
 
Vanadium 50 said:
Do you want to tell us where this comes from?

Oh sorry. Here it is

 
Translation: here's a page with a half dozen animations on it, anyone of which might be the one I am interested in.

Sorry, you're going to have to find another playmate for these games of yours. I'm not going to guess.
 
Vanadium 50 said:
Translation: here's a page with a half dozen animations on it, anyone of which might be the one I am interested in.

Sorry, you're going to have to find another playmate for these games of yours. I'm not going to guess.

Its the top one in the link. The first two that plays automatically are similar. Its the top one. The one that doesn't have yellow in it and is mostly blue with spots of red. It's something about action density.

"
The animations to the right and above illustrate the typical four-dimensional structure of gluon-field configurations averaged over in describing the vacuum properties of QCD. The volume of the box is 2.4 by 2.4 by 3.6 fm, big enough to hold a couple of protons. Contrary to the concept of an empty vacuum, QCD induces chromo-electric and chromo-magnetic fields throughout space-time in its lowest energy state. After a few sweeps of smoothing the gluon field (50 sweeps of APE smearing), a lumpy structure reminiscent of a lava lamp is revealed. This is the QCD Lava Lamp. The action density (top) and the topological charge density (right) are displayed. The former is similar to an energy density while the latter is a measure of the winding of the gluon field lines in the QCD vacuum.
"
and the picture is the one that I posted in the OP. Sorry for being vague. I get absent minded about these things sometimes.
 
Last edited:
FallenApple said:
below is an animation of a quantum field's energy density fluctuating

I looked at the page you linked to but didn't see any references to the actual math behind these animations. Without that it's going to be very difficult to answer your questions.

FallenApple said:
I saw a video from veritasium stating that the quarks are likely to live on top of those lumps. Why?

Same problem here; without a reference to the actual math it's not really possible to answer. In short, the videos by themselves are not acceptable sources for a PF discussion.

Based on the above, I am closing the thread. @FallenApple if you can find references to actual math (preferably articles or papers discussing how the videos were generated), PM me with links so they can be reviewed.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
5K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 31 ·
2
Replies
31
Views
4K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K