3 ms·

Sure, you can take it further and declare that electrons are actually quasiparticles because they're actually excitations of surrounding fields, if you want. I'

Sure, you can take it further and declare that electrons are actually quasiparticles because they're actually excitations of surrounding fields, if you want. I'm not sure what it gets you though- there are real differences between an electron hole and an electron and that's what the quasi- moniker is getting at.

zmgsabst 4y ago
Sure — but I wasn’t talking about electrons, which as far as we can tell are fundamental particles. I was talking about protons and neutrons. What distinguishes a proton, which gains its mass as a hole in the quark-gluon fuzz permeating the universe, from an electron hole in metal? I think that gets you something: You can understand protons and neutrons as holes in the “crystallized” space that came out of the universe cooling to its current state — that the fuzz of quarks and gluons is something like a “metal” in which protons and neutrons are “holes”.
- jjk166 4y ago
  It is mathematically useful to think of space as being full of virtual particles including quarks, gluons, and electrons, but there isn't actually a quark-gluon "fuzz" permeating the universe. There was such a physically real fuzz, or more properly a quark-gluon plasma in the extremely early universe (the first few microseconds) which "froze" into hadrons, but this is more akin to water in a cloud condensing into snow. You can certainly formulate the math such that hadrons, or any other particle for that matter, behave like holes in a substrate, indeed this is the basis of quantum field theory. But unlike quasiparticles where that substrate is something in the universe like a block of metal, for regular particles the substrate is the universe.
  - zmgsabst 4y ago
    I appreciate the time people are taking to walk me through this confusion! - - - - - > You can certainly formulate the math such that hadrons, or any other particle for that matter, behave like holes in a substrate, indeed this is the basis of quantum field theory. Okay — I’m with you here. > But unlike quasiparticles where that substrate is something in the universe like a block of metal, for regular particles the substrate is the universe. Okay — but so what? Why is it different that it’s within a metal than the stuff the universe cooled into? In both cases, we’re discussing an emergent object with new quantum numbers in some substrate: - electron holes are a hole in the fuzz of electrons in metals - protons are a hole in the background fuzz of quarks and gluons in cold aether > It is mathematically useful to think of space as being full of virtual particles including quarks, gluons, and electrons, but there isn't actually a quark-gluon "fuzz" permeating the universe. I’m not sure I follow: proton mass is related to flux tubes suppressing that fuzz in the area of the proton. Empty space has energy, which manifests as that particle fuzz. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_energy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_energy
    - jjk166 4y ago
      > Why is it different that it’s within a metal than the stuff the universe cooled into? Because that's the point of classification - we want to distinguish between case A and case B. Everything in existence is an emergent property of the universe, but you can't really have any meaningful conversation if the only noun in your vocabulary is "stuff." > protons are a hole in the background fuzz of quarks and gluons in cold aether No, there is no cold aether, and protons are not holes in anything. They are composite particles. To the degree that their constituent parts can be described as excitations of quantum fields, so can they, but they are no less real. > I’m not sure I follow: proton mass is related to flux tubes suppressing that fuzz in the area of the proton. Empty space has energy, which manifests as that particle fuzz. Proton mass comes from the confinement of its constituent parts. Only about 9% of the proton's mass is a result of the quarks it contains interacting with the quark field, which again is not literally a "fuzz" of discrete particles. Flux tubes are just shapes of magnetic fields. Protons are not just their mass, they have many properties.
      - zmgsabst 4y ago
        > Because that's the point of classification - we want to distinguish between case A and case B. Right — but why? What is useful about that classification if the two types of particles emerge the same way, as holes within a substrate? What do we gain in “composite” vs “quasi”? > No, there is no cold aether, and protons are not holes in anything. There is — we can measure vacuum energy as existing. We can also measure spacetime as existing, directly. We know there’s an aether. > Proton mass comes from the confinement of its constituent parts. […] Flux tubes are just shapes of magnetic fields. Flux tubes are the region where the connection between quarks suppresses the fuzz from vacuum energy. That’s where the non-quark mass comes from. (As you call it, confinement.) https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/81484/how-does-flux-tubes-between-quarks-bind-them-together https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/81484/how-does-f...

zmgsabst 4y ago

Sure — but I wasn’t talking about electrons, which as far as we can tell are fundamental particles. I was talking about protons and neutrons. What distinguishes a proton, which gains its mass as a hole in the quark-gluon fuzz permeating the universe, from an electron hole in metal? I think that gets you something: You can understand protons and neutrons as holes in the “crystallized” space that came out of the universe cooling to its current state — that the fuzz of quarks and gluons is something like a “metal” in which protons and neutrons are “holes”.

jjk166 4y ago
It is mathematically useful to think of space as being full of virtual particles including quarks, gluons, and electrons, but there isn't actually a quark-gluon "fuzz" permeating the universe. There was such a physically real fuzz, or more properly a quark-gluon plasma in the extremely early universe (the first few microseconds) which "froze" into hadrons, but this is more akin to water in a cloud condensing into snow. You can certainly formulate the math such that hadrons, or any other particle for that matter, behave like holes in a substrate, indeed this is the basis of quantum field theory. But unlike quasiparticles where that substrate is something in the universe like a block of metal, for regular particles the substrate is the universe.
- zmgsabst 4y ago
  I appreciate the time people are taking to walk me through this confusion! - - - - - > You can certainly formulate the math such that hadrons, or any other particle for that matter, behave like holes in a substrate, indeed this is the basis of quantum field theory. Okay — I’m with you here. > But unlike quasiparticles where that substrate is something in the universe like a block of metal, for regular particles the substrate is the universe. Okay — but so what? Why is it different that it’s within a metal than the stuff the universe cooled into? In both cases, we’re discussing an emergent object with new quantum numbers in some substrate: - electron holes are a hole in the fuzz of electrons in metals - protons are a hole in the background fuzz of quarks and gluons in cold aether > It is mathematically useful to think of space as being full of virtual particles including quarks, gluons, and electrons, but there isn't actually a quark-gluon "fuzz" permeating the universe. I’m not sure I follow: proton mass is related to flux tubes suppressing that fuzz in the area of the proton. Empty space has energy, which manifests as that particle fuzz. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_energy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_energy
  - jjk166 4y ago
    > Why is it different that it’s within a metal than the stuff the universe cooled into? Because that's the point of classification - we want to distinguish between case A and case B. Everything in existence is an emergent property of the universe, but you can't really have any meaningful conversation if the only noun in your vocabulary is "stuff." > protons are a hole in the background fuzz of quarks and gluons in cold aether No, there is no cold aether, and protons are not holes in anything. They are composite particles. To the degree that their constituent parts can be described as excitations of quantum fields, so can they, but they are no less real. > I’m not sure I follow: proton mass is related to flux tubes suppressing that fuzz in the area of the proton. Empty space has energy, which manifests as that particle fuzz. Proton mass comes from the confinement of its constituent parts. Only about 9% of the proton's mass is a result of the quarks it contains interacting with the quark field, which again is not literally a "fuzz" of discrete particles. Flux tubes are just shapes of magnetic fields. Protons are not just their mass, they have many properties.
    - zmgsabst 4y ago
      > Because that's the point of classification - we want to distinguish between case A and case B. Right — but why? What is useful about that classification if the two types of particles emerge the same way, as holes within a substrate? What do we gain in “composite” vs “quasi”? > No, there is no cold aether, and protons are not holes in anything. There is — we can measure vacuum energy as existing. We can also measure spacetime as existing, directly. We know there’s an aether. > Proton mass comes from the confinement of its constituent parts. […] Flux tubes are just shapes of magnetic fields. Flux tubes are the region where the connection between quarks suppresses the fuzz from vacuum energy. That’s where the non-quark mass comes from. (As you call it, confinement.) https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/81484/how-does-flux-tubes-between-quarks-bind-them-together https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/81484/how-does-f...