Exploring Gluon Interaction for Matter Creation

In summary, the conversation discusses the possibility of multiple gluons orbiting each other and creating a bound state called a "glueball." However, it is important to note that the concept of "orbit" is not applicable in the realm of particle physics and the existence of glueballs has not been confirmed experimentally. The conversation also touches on the idea of gluons creating mass and energy, but the exact mechanisms and limitations are still being studied and debated in the scientific community.
  • #1
questionator89
57
0
Just trying to get to the bottom of a thought.
If glouns interact with each other or itself, could there be a multiple glouns orbiting each other?
Could this orbit create acceleration, and mass, and create quarks? Or possibly more gluon mass?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
questionator89 said:
If glouns interact with each other or itself

They do.

questionator89 said:
could there be a multiple glouns orbiting each other?

Gluons are massless, so they can't orbit each other.

questionator89 said:
Could this orbit create acceleration, and mass, and create quarks? Or possibly more gluon mass?

You can't create mass (energy) out of nothing. But gluons can certainly create quark-antiquark pairs if they are energetic enough:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quark–gluon_plasma
 
  • #3
questionator89 said:
...could there be a multiple glouns orbiting each other?

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

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1301.5183.pdf
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glueball
*that does not strictly mean that there are no quarks involved, becaue there will always be sea quarks in such a bound state, also in a glueball.
 
  • Like
Likes ohwilleke and vanhees71
  • #4
If glouns interact with each other or itself, could there be a multiple glouns orbiting each other?

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:

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
f_{0}(1710)
, 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.

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.

But, no one has ever observed a free glueball (or, at least, has never been able to prove that what they are observing is a free glueball), although some scalar mesons and axial vector mesons may be a mix of glueball and non-glueball hadron states.

The lack of experimental detection of glueballs, despite the fact that they are expected to have relatively modest masses in their ground states (on the order of 0.5 GeV to 3 GeV, the same mass range as many ordinary hadrons that are observed every day at even fairly low energy particle colliders), and despite the fact that they are completely described theoretically (creating a very specific experimental target to look for), after basically half a century of looking for them, also leaves open that possibility that the actually don't exist for some subtle reason beyond the equations and physical constants of Standard Model QCD.

PeterDonis said:
Gluons are massless, so they can't orbit each other.

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.

For example, massless photons orbit black holes when they are in what is called the photon sphere of a black hole.

Indeed, 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. Energy confined in space is basically indistinguishable from mass for purposes of general relativity.

Could this orbit create acceleration, and mass, and create quarks? Or possibly more gluon mass?

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.

In certain kinds of perturbative QCD approaches such as the Nambu-Jona-Lasinio model, it is useful to think of gluons as dynamically acquiring mass for purposes of doing calculations regarding how strong force dominated systems in the perturbative QCD domain behave, even tough they have zero rest mass. See, e.g., this paper. The extent to which this mathematical tool corresponds to something physically real is debatable, and is, to some extent, more of a philosophical issue than a practical one, which physicists of the "shut up and calculate" school are inclined to think of as not worth answering or ill defined.
 
Last edited:
  • #5
ohwilleke said:
gravity is not the only force that can cause things to orbit other things

The issue is not the interaction; it's the fact that massless things travel at the speed of light.

ohwilleke said:
massless photons orbit black holes when they are in what is called the photon sphere of a black hole.

Yes, but the black hole is not made of photons. Photons cannot orbit other photons.

ohwilleke said:
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

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.
 
  • #6
PeterDonis said:
Yes, but the black hole is not made of photons. Photons cannot orbit other photons.

Another theoretically possible example is a geon.
 
  • #7
ohwilleke said:
Another theoretically possible example is a geon.

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".
 
  • #8
PeterDonis said:
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".

Particles confined by their own self-energy is a reasonable definition of "orbiting each other".
 
  • #9
ohwilleke said:
Particles confined by their own self-energy is a reasonable definition of "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.
 
  • #10
PeterDonis said:
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.

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.
 
  • #11
ohwilleke said:
A classical solution involving waves necessarily has a quantum mechanical solution involving particles

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.
 

1. What is gluon interaction?

Gluon interaction is a fundamental force that binds quarks together to form protons and neutrons, the building blocks of matter. It is one of the four fundamental forces of nature, along with gravity, electromagnetism, and the weak nuclear force.

2. How does gluon interaction contribute to matter creation?

Gluon interaction is responsible for the strong nuclear force, which holds the nucleus of an atom together. Without this force, matter would not be able to exist in its current form, as atoms would not be able to hold their protons and neutrons together.

3. Can gluon interaction be observed in experiments?

Yes, gluon interaction can be observed in experiments such as particle accelerators and high-energy collisions. Scientists use these experiments to study the behavior of quarks and gluons and better understand the fundamental forces of nature.

4. How does the study of gluon interaction contribute to our understanding of the universe?

Studying gluon interaction allows us to understand the fundamental forces that govern the behavior of matter in the universe. It also helps us to understand the origins of the universe and how it has evolved over time.

5. Are there any practical applications of exploring gluon interaction?

While the study of gluon interaction is primarily focused on understanding the fundamental forces of nature, it has also led to practical applications such as nuclear energy and medical imaging technologies. Additionally, the technology used in particle accelerators has also been adapted for use in various industries, including materials science and electronics.

Similar threads

  • High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
Replies
12
Views
1K
  • High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
Replies
17
Views
2K
  • High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
Replies
30
Views
6K
  • High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
Replies
7
Views
2K
Back
Top