4 ms·
Doesn't work either - either bosons exist, and are plentiful, or there are none of them. Being rarer than one is either not special, or impossible!
by ZoFreX 15y ago
Doesn't work either - either bosons exist, and are plentiful, or there are none of them. Being rarer than one is either not special, or impossible!
- Peroni 15y agoI need to work on my analogies. I've been using that phrase for months, trust HN to point out the error! To be fair, I base the analogy on the following: Due to a phenomenon known as color confinement, quarks are never directly observed or found in isolation; they can only be found within hadrons
- mctavjb9 15y ago"Rarer than a free quark" would save your analogy.
- Confusion 15y agoRarer than a magnetic monopole would also work, but doesn't quite have the same ring.
- nagrom 15y agoYes, but hadrons basically make up a lot of matter :-) You want free quark, or if you want obscure-physics cred, you could say 'rarer than an odderon'. The (non?)existence of odderons has been an argument in particle physics for about 30 years... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Odderon http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Odderon
- bluedanieru 15y agoWhat? Bosons, such as a photon, definitely exist in the sense that they are part of the Standard Model of particle physics. They are as 'real' as electrons or quarks or, in some sense, a table.