4 ms·
You cannot separate quarks and antiquarks. The force that holds them together increases, rather than decreases, the further apart you pull them, until the energ
by lalaithion 6y ago
You cannot separate quarks and antiquarks. The force that holds them together increases, rather than decreases, the further apart you pull them, until the energy in that field is so strong it can spontaneously convert to matter in the form of a new quark and antiquark to bind to the now-separated old quark and antiquark.
- perl4ever 6y agoI've read that description before, and it always makes me feel like there must be a lay-appreciable way to describe those two modes that would provide more insight. There's a certain tension between the idea that something is composed of parts, yet it can't be separated. How is that fundamentally different from composite things which can be separated? That's a rhetorical question; I just mean there ought to be a more satisfying way of describing the dichotomy. Perhaps it can be described without math per se but in terms of visualizable fields?
- refulgentis 6y agopicture a rubber band, lying in a circle, on a table left half band is red rubber right half is blue as you stretch the rubber band, it resists more and more when you pull hard enough, it breaks on the red/blue divide. a new red/blue half spontaneously appears for each. now you have two rubber bands
- perl4ever 6y agoI've heard that sort of thing before. My point is, that when you consider that sort of explanation, and let's suppose it vaguely seems to make intuitive sense, then what about the things/particles that don't act like that? If the explanation of "A" doesn't distinguish between "A" and "not A" then it isn't in fact an explanation.