They do.If glouns interact with eachother or itself
Gluons are massless, so they can't orbit each other.could there be a multiple glouns orbiting eachother?
You can't create mass (energy) out of nothing. But gluons can certainly create quark-antiquark pairs if they are energetic enough:Could this orbit create acceleration, and mass, and create quarks? Or possibly more gluon mass?
you should not think of gluons orbiting each other, that is a too naive classical picture that does not apply in the realms of particle physics where the situation is more complicated, but there should indeed exist a bound state of gluons without valence quarks*, called glueball...could there be a multiple glouns orbiting eachother?
You appear to be describing a hypothetical composite particle most commonly called a "glueball" (although as @Reggid correctly explains, it is really a bit more complicated than multiple gluons orbiting each other). As the linked Wikipedia article's introduction explains:If glouns interact with each other or itself, could there be a multiple glouns orbiting each other?
Mathematically, they have been well described from the earliest days of Quantum Chromodynamics (QCD), which is seemingly easy since their properties are almost entirely derived from only one experimentally determined physical constant, the strong force (i.e. SU(3)) coupling constant. All of their properties are relatively easily discerned from first principles compared to other hadrons.In particle physics, a glueball (also gluonium, gluon-ball) is a hypothetical composite particle. It consists solely of gluon particles, without valence quarks. Such a state is possible because gluons carry color charge and experience the strong interaction between themselves. Glueballs are extremely difficult to identify in particle accelerators, because they mix with ordinary meson states.
Theoretical calculations show that glueballs should exist at energy ranges accessible with current collider technology. However, due to the aforementioned difficulty (among others), they have so far not been observed and identified with certainty, although phenomenological calculations have suggested that an experimentally identified glueball candidate, denoted, has properties consistent with those expected of a Standard Model glueball.
The prediction that glueballs exist is one of the most important predictions of the Standard Model of particle physics that has not yet been confirmed experimentally. Glueballs are the only particles predicted by the Standard Model with total angular momentum (J) (sometimes called "intrinsic spin") that could be either 2 or 3 in their ground states.
The other points are correct, but gravity is not the only force that can cause things to orbit other things (e.g., electrons are bound to atomic nuclei by electromagnetism rather than gravity), and gravity acts of mass-energy not just mass. "Orbit" may be a bit of an oversimplification in both the electromagnetic and strong force cases, but the presence or lack of an orbit doesn't follow from the absence of rest mass.Gluons are massless, so they can't orbit each other.
The math involved in applying QCD to real life phenomena is too difficult to do completely on an analytical basis for an exact and complete solution. Instead, what physicists do is approximate strong force interactions using a variety of different tricks. In the low energy (i.e. infrared) context, such as protons and neutrons at rest, a numerical approximation tool called "lattice QCD" is used. In the high energy (i.e. ultraviolet) context, such as particles colliding at high energies in colliders, various techniques that make up "perturbative QCD" are used.Could this orbit create acceleration, and mass, and create quarks? Or possibly more gluon mass?
The issue is not the interaction; it's the fact that massless things travel at the speed of light.gravity is not the only force that can cause things to orbit other things
Yes, but the black hole is not made of photons. Photons cannot orbit other photons.
Sure, but none of this says that gluons can orbit other gluons. If we are talking about gluons inside hadrons, they aren't free and the concept of "orbit" doesn't even apply to them. If we are talking about free gluons (which can't exist in our current universe but could at high enough temperatures, such as in the very early universe), they can't orbit each other for the reasons given above. So either way it's not correct to say that gluons can orbit other gluons.most of the mass of ordinary matter in the universe is derived from the energy of gluons (or gluon fields, depending upon the theoretical context you are describing them with) within in protons and neutrons, not predominantly from the valence quarks, or even from the sea quarks
Particles confined by their own self-energy is a reasonable definition of "orbiting each other".Which is a classical solution in which EM or gravitational waves are confined by their own self-energy, and again, does not correspond to "photons orbiting each other".
You didn't read my post (or the Wikipedia article you linked to, for that matter). A geon is a classical solution in which waves are confined by their own self-energy. It is not a solution in which particles orbit each other.Particles confined by their own self-energy is a reasonable definition of "orbiting each other".
But, in quantum mechanics, wave-like behavior is seen as simply one way of describing the interactions of particles under particular circumstances. A classical solution involving waves necessarily has a quantum mechanical solution involving particles, someone that the linked article on geons alludes to.You didn't read my post (or the Wikipedia article you linked to, for that matter). A geon is a classical solution in which waves are confined by their own self-energy. It is not a solution in which particles orbit each other.
Only in the sense that "particles" is the word usually used to describe quantum objects. But "particles" in this sense do not have well-defined "orbits", as I already pointed out several posts ago. So in this sense, "particles orbiting each other" is not a good description of whatever quantum model corresponds to a classical geon.A classical solution involving waves necessarily has a quantum mechanical solution involving particles