The spherical shape represents the strength of its properties. Because the properties are symmetrical about a point; they are the same in all directions.From the above physics, I conclude that quarks are not spherical balls. Then I ask, If quarks are not spherical balls, why is it that they are commonly drawn as spherical balls? Is that a bad question?
I don’t understand this graphic. When you say “how might you represent the above particle” do you refer to the point particle at the center of the field or do you call the spherical field of charge a “particle”?This is what we actually observe when we look a subatomic particle. [...] How might you represent the above particle?
It would be impossible to try to represent zero-dimensional particles in a video Since you would not be able to see them, you would have to artificially inflate their size.I don’t understand this graphic. When you say “how might you represent the above particle” do you refer to the point particle at the center of the field or do you call the spherical field of charge a “particle”?
Well, it was not meant to be a picture of a quark "in the wild".Also “quarks are never directly observed or found in isolation”. So, the “point particle” at the center cannot be a quark. Is this correct?
Well, you could ask the artist...Where can I find more info about this graphic?
I found this video that shows the gluons too (also as spheres).
Yes. We are venturing into quantum field theory, which is far beyond this subforum we are in which is general physics.
Not all the time : if there is a gluon nearby it morphs into a nike-like swooshinsist on representing quarks as spherical particles
I found a picture showing gluons as springs. Do gluons obey Hook's law?