> None of these configurations are stable, so is it even accurate to call them "particles"? Not really, not when they're this unstable. Traditionally hadrons t

> None of these configurations are stable, so is it even accurate to call them "particles"? Not really, not when they're this unstable. Traditionally hadrons that decay very quickly are called "resonances" instead. The dividing line between a particle and a resonance is usually whether you quote its lifetime in seconds or MeV :) The two are directly related through the uncertainty relation, specifically the one coming from the energy-time commutator.