So, I have a question, and maybe we don't have an answer, or maybe it's a simple answer. I was thinking, and if we have a pentaquark, I'm pretty sure we have to have a quark-antiquark pair (of any color-anticolor) and 3 quarks (one of each color). If, per say, the quark and antiquark were adjacent, I would think it would tend to eject itself from the particle, due to the superposition of the sum of charge appearing as essentially zero to the other 3 quarks. The same would apply to the 3 quarks with respect to the quark-antiquark pair. When you take into account asymptotic freedom, where the strong force approaches zero as distance approaches zero, any "net" force on these quarks should be negligible. This seems to imply that the quark antiquark pair have another quark inbetween them that they can bond to, to maintain the pentaquark for a ~non-zero amount of time (I know the lifespan was really short). This would also imply that for a stable pentaquark, that the quark-antiquark pair and the quark inbetween would have to be unable to exchange gluons with the environment (otherwise one of them could end up as the same color as an adjacent quark, and be ejceted, effectively causing the pentaquark to decay), or there would have to be simultaneous gluon absorbsion/emission to compensate and maintain its stability (again, I know this particle was highly unstable). So with this presumable position dependence on the formation of a true pentaquark (contrary to a meson-baryon pair like is also being speculated about), wouldn't this imply a lack of superposition? (i.e. the quarks must be in a certain configuration, and we know their positions relative to each other) If not, then where is the flaw in this logic? I am apparently missing something. Thanks in advance.