5 ms·

Yes, yes, I also understand this. But why are they in units of 1/3(e). Why are down quarks not -0.398390847895...(e) and up quarks not +0.6234098129034809234.

Yes, yes, I also understand this. But why are they in units of 1/3(e). Why are down quarks not -0.398390847895...(e) and up quarks not +0.6234098129034809234...(e). Why do they add up so damn neatly?

edgyquant 3y ago
Because they are mathematical models built to describe a thing and thus their entire purpose as a concept is to add up “neatly”
- DiscourseFan 3y ago
  I'm getting very strong "angels on a pinhead" vibes from this
  - edgyquant 3y ago
    Im getting very strong “ad hominem” vibes from someone who has an irrational view of predictive models.
  - jacquesm 3y ago
    With the minute difference that we do not have experimental validation for Angels dancing on a pinhead whereas there is a massive amount of experimental validation for the standard model.
    - DonHopkins 3y ago
      I thought he meant "angles on a pinhead". Now you're talkin' tri-angular! https://cidu.info/2022/05/06/thats-a-cute-angle/ https://cidu.info/2022/05/06/thats-a-cute-angle/ Right angles are wrong angles! Death to th' T-square! https://comicskingdom.com/zippy-the-pinhead/2023-07-02 https://comicskingdom.com/zippy-the-pinhead/2023-07-02
      - DiscourseFan 3y ago
        Thank you for your contribution, my fellow Pynchon Enjoyer
    - DiscourseFan 3y ago
      So you're saying that all we need to do is experimentally validate the number of angels dancing on a pinhead?
  - wombatpm 3y ago
    Measure the area of a pinhead, divide by cross-sectional area of an angel. Easy peasy.
    - jacquesm 3y ago
      Division by zero error.
      - DiscourseFan 3y ago
        Its still purely theoretical, but a lot of work has already been done to show experimental evidence of angels. I think we're pretty close to confirming their existence.
- idiotsecant 3y ago
  No, these are models with simple, testable properties. You can't wave away the fundamental charges as something somebody made up to make the models nice, conspiracy theories don't work when there is a simply observable truth.
  - edgyquant 3y ago
    Yes they are just that, models, which is what I said. We need X to describe Y therefore we don’t need to pretend X is a miracle because it was always designed to describe Y. It was deduced from Y for this purpose. No idea what you’re getting at with that conspiracy theory comment, or rather I do and think you need to touch grass and stop projecting some boogey man onto people for stating an objective fact. These are predictive models not divine truth and if you think this is a conspiracy theory you either havent studied much math yourself or your are seriously brainwashed. This is not a fringe view and is a core debate within the philosophy of mathematics with no definitive answer.
- feoren 3y ago
  No. These are not numbers physicists just pulled out of their asses. You act like the mathematical model could have been anything else. That's not just wrong, but decidedly anti-science. We can test your theory: if the entire purpose of the mathematical model was to "add up neatly", and that's the reason why charge(proton) / charge(electron) is a nice round -1, then that should be true for other properties, right? What is mass(proton) / mass(electron)? It's 1836.1526734... Is that nice and neat? No, it's not. And yet physicists didn't decide to adjust their theory because that number offended them, as you suggest. Turns out you're spreading anti-science disinformation for absolutely no reason. The purpose of the theory is to describe reality. In the case of charge, it is reality that adds up "neatly".
  - edgyquant 3y ago
    No the purpose of the theory is to make predictions. Any ideas about objective reality are philosophical at best.
delecti 3y ago
Could be a bit of anthropic principle at play. Universes where things don't work out with some stability might not support chemistry, and biology is especially finicky chemistry.
yummypaint 3y ago
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_formulation_of_the_Standard_Model https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_formulation_of_... Mathematically it works out that way because the standard model is build up from symmetry groups. The hand wavy explanation is that the symmetries observed in nature wouldn't be reproduced if the charges differed by random irrational numbers. The same is also generally true of other conserved quantities in the SM. Noether's theorem unifies symmetries and conservation laws as the same thing. As far as a more fundamental explanation as to WHY the universe is this way, ask your god i guess.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
blueprint 3y ago
when you understand quantum theory correctly, you will realize that particles don't exist by themselves. They are a temporary localization. this means that the number of quarks inside a proton is not actually fixed. when a particle becomes disentangled with the system, that localized it, there's no longer a particle I mentioned this recently, in the context of the laziness in language, leading to the miseducation of those who don't know better, and was heavily downvoted and ridiculed keep it up, hn, you'll see idiocracy soon enough and then no one will trigger you
- rolph 3y ago
  thanks, i want to stress the model of the proton i had posited up thread is very simplified, for the purpose of explanation.
- CoastalCoder 3y ago
  HN is a great training ground for learning how to present arguments in a compelling, engaging manner.
  - blueprint 3y ago
    that may be true, but I'm already highly trained at that. But hey, what if you just ratchet up the difficulty to infinity. Then it will train people even better. Either that or it'll destroy the community because you dont have any criterion of right and wrong in your claim. It doesnt matter how correct people are. The more correct people are the worse they're treated. The better we get at presenting true arguments the more you will resent us and the more you have no choice but to react with violence (being unable to admit your lie), as HNers do now with trap counterarguments and gaslighting. No wonder suicide is on the rise.
    - Dylan16807 3y ago
      What's the lie that needs to be admitted?
      - 3y ago
ianburrell 3y ago
Because that is the universe we live in. We don't know where the universal constants come from, if they are random, or selected. Science can't really answer the question of "why", it only does "how".
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
snarfy 3y ago
My layman understanding is that charge is not fundamental. It derives from something called weak hypercharge. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weak_hypercharge https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weak_hypercharge
nojvek 3y ago
It’s essentially asking why is the speed of light 299,798,452 m/s or the gravitational constant 6.67x10-11 Nm2/kg2 I’m sure a universe could work with those constants varied but that’s the one we have in our universe. There could be hypothetical universes with protons being half of electron and atoms would have twice the protons. However the fundamental constants are just that. A number that allows us to reason about how the universe works. As to why the number is that, gotta ask your God why they chose that specific value.
- Dylan16807 3y ago
  > It’s essentially asking why is the speed of light 299,798,452 m/s or the gravitational constant 6.67x10-11 Nm2/kg2 No, because those constants are entirely arbitrary. The curiosity here is that you have multiple numbers lining up, only separated by small integers.
  - lostemptations5 3y ago
    They are arbitrary in the sense that we could just change them and the universe wouldn't fl appart -- or are they derived from aonething deeper.
    - fiddlerwoaroof 3y ago
      The obvious way in which those constants are arbitrary is that the meter is just a random length we compare other lengths to (and the gram is an arbitrary mass we use). So, the precise numbers are only meaningful as part of a system built on these units
      - lostemptations5 3y ago
        "Since 2019 the metre has been defined as the length of the path travelled by light in vacuum during a time interval of 1/299792458 of a second, where the second is defined by a hyperfine transition frequency of caesium." (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metre https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metre) I wouldn't call it totally random, no. It's really derived from somethings real in this universe. > So, the precise numbers are only meaningful as part of a system built on these units That doesn't sound particularly random. And in fact we agree here.
bbor 3y ago
Ok probably a dumb take but: doesn’t that “stable forms become more common over time” principle also apply to protons purely by principle of them being in opposition to electrons? Ie the field that coalesces into the quarks we see today because those quarks can ultimately form atoms. EDIT: after reading the great Wikipedia article above, and a connected one [1], I think I can restate: the only place we can look for these particles is in atoms, so it shouldn’t surprise us that they come in convenient forms to support atom formation. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accidental_symmetry https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accidental_symmetry
lagadu 3y ago
You're effectively asking why universal constants are the value that they are. Eventually there's no answer other than "it's a property of the universe we live in that we observed." If you keep asking why eventually you'll reach a ratio between two values: constants and you can't really go further deeper than that. Even if the values we have now end up not being the most fundamental, eventually you'll run into the fundamental ones and still have the same question unanswered.

Yes, yes, I also understand this. But why are they in units of 1/3(e). Why are down quarks not -0.398390847895...(e) and up quarks not +0.6234098129034809234...(e). Why do they add up so damn neatly?

edgyquant 3y ago

Because they are mathematical models built to describe a thing and thus their entire purpose as a concept is to add up “neatly”

DiscourseFan 3y ago
I'm getting very strong "angels on a pinhead" vibes from this
- edgyquant 3y ago
  Im getting very strong “ad hominem” vibes from someone who has an irrational view of predictive models.
- jacquesm 3y ago
  With the minute difference that we do not have experimental validation for Angels dancing on a pinhead whereas there is a massive amount of experimental validation for the standard model.
  - DonHopkins 3y ago
    I thought he meant "angles on a pinhead". Now you're talkin' tri-angular! https://cidu.info/2022/05/06/thats-a-cute-angle/ https://cidu.info/2022/05/06/thats-a-cute-angle/ Right angles are wrong angles! Death to th' T-square! https://comicskingdom.com/zippy-the-pinhead/2023-07-02 https://comicskingdom.com/zippy-the-pinhead/2023-07-02
    - DiscourseFan 3y ago
      Thank you for your contribution, my fellow Pynchon Enjoyer
  - DiscourseFan 3y ago
    So you're saying that all we need to do is experimentally validate the number of angels dancing on a pinhead?
- wombatpm 3y ago
  Measure the area of a pinhead, divide by cross-sectional area of an angel. Easy peasy.
  - jacquesm 3y ago
    Division by zero error.
    - DiscourseFan 3y ago
      Its still purely theoretical, but a lot of work has already been done to show experimental evidence of angels. I think we're pretty close to confirming their existence.
idiotsecant 3y ago
No, these are models with simple, testable properties. You can't wave away the fundamental charges as something somebody made up to make the models nice, conspiracy theories don't work when there is a simply observable truth.
- edgyquant 3y ago
  Yes they are just that, models, which is what I said. We need X to describe Y therefore we don’t need to pretend X is a miracle because it was always designed to describe Y. It was deduced from Y for this purpose. No idea what you’re getting at with that conspiracy theory comment, or rather I do and think you need to touch grass and stop projecting some boogey man onto people for stating an objective fact. These are predictive models not divine truth and if you think this is a conspiracy theory you either havent studied much math yourself or your are seriously brainwashed. This is not a fringe view and is a core debate within the philosophy of mathematics with no definitive answer.
feoren 3y ago
No. These are not numbers physicists just pulled out of their asses. You act like the mathematical model could have been anything else. That's not just wrong, but decidedly anti-science. We can test your theory: if the entire purpose of the mathematical model was to "add up neatly", and that's the reason why charge(proton) / charge(electron) is a nice round -1, then that should be true for other properties, right? What is mass(proton) / mass(electron)? It's 1836.1526734... Is that nice and neat? No, it's not. And yet physicists didn't decide to adjust their theory because that number offended them, as you suggest. Turns out you're spreading anti-science disinformation for absolutely no reason. The purpose of the theory is to describe reality. In the case of charge, it is reality that adds up "neatly".
- edgyquant 3y ago
  No the purpose of the theory is to make predictions. Any ideas about objective reality are philosophical at best.

delecti 3y ago

Could be a bit of anthropic principle at play. Universes where things don't work out with some stability might not support chemistry, and biology is especially finicky chemistry.

yummypaint 3y ago

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_formulation_of_the_Standard_Model https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_formulation_of_... Mathematically it works out that way because the standard model is build up from symmetry groups. The hand wavy explanation is that the symmetries observed in nature wouldn't be reproduced if the charges differed by random irrational numbers. The same is also generally true of other conserved quantities in the SM. Noether's theorem unifies symmetries and conservation laws as the same thing. As far as a more fundamental explanation as to WHY the universe is this way, ask your god i guess.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

blueprint 3y ago

when you understand quantum theory correctly, you will realize that particles don't exist by themselves. They are a temporary localization. this means that the number of quarks inside a proton is not actually fixed. when a particle becomes disentangled with the system, that localized it, there's no longer a particle I mentioned this recently, in the context of the laziness in language, leading to the miseducation of those who don't know better, and was heavily downvoted and ridiculed keep it up, hn, you'll see idiocracy soon enough and then no one will trigger you

rolph 3y ago
thanks, i want to stress the model of the proton i had posited up thread is very simplified, for the purpose of explanation.
CoastalCoder 3y ago
HN is a great training ground for learning how to present arguments in a compelling, engaging manner.
- blueprint 3y ago
  that may be true, but I'm already highly trained at that. But hey, what if you just ratchet up the difficulty to infinity. Then it will train people even better. Either that or it'll destroy the community because you dont have any criterion of right and wrong in your claim. It doesnt matter how correct people are. The more correct people are the worse they're treated. The better we get at presenting true arguments the more you will resent us and the more you have no choice but to react with violence (being unable to admit your lie), as HNers do now with trap counterarguments and gaslighting. No wonder suicide is on the rise.
  - Dylan16807 3y ago
    What's the lie that needs to be admitted?
    - 3y ago

ianburrell 3y ago

Because that is the universe we live in. We don't know where the universal constants come from, if they are random, or selected. Science can't really answer the question of "why", it only does "how".

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

snarfy 3y ago

My layman understanding is that charge is not fundamental. It derives from something called weak hypercharge. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weak_hypercharge https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weak_hypercharge

nojvek 3y ago

It’s essentially asking why is the speed of light 299,798,452 m/s or the gravitational constant 6.67x10-11 Nm2/kg2 I’m sure a universe could work with those constants varied but that’s the one we have in our universe. There could be hypothetical universes with protons being half of electron and atoms would have twice the protons. However the fundamental constants are just that. A number that allows us to reason about how the universe works. As to why the number is that, gotta ask your God why they chose that specific value.

Dylan16807 3y ago
> It’s essentially asking why is the speed of light 299,798,452 m/s or the gravitational constant 6.67x10-11 Nm2/kg2 No, because those constants are entirely arbitrary. The curiosity here is that you have multiple numbers lining up, only separated by small integers.
- lostemptations5 3y ago
  They are arbitrary in the sense that we could just change them and the universe wouldn't fl appart -- or are they derived from aonething deeper.
  - fiddlerwoaroof 3y ago
    The obvious way in which those constants are arbitrary is that the meter is just a random length we compare other lengths to (and the gram is an arbitrary mass we use). So, the precise numbers are only meaningful as part of a system built on these units
    - lostemptations5 3y ago
      "Since 2019 the metre has been defined as the length of the path travelled by light in vacuum during a time interval of 1/299792458 of a second, where the second is defined by a hyperfine transition frequency of caesium." (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metre https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metre) I wouldn't call it totally random, no. It's really derived from somethings real in this universe. > So, the precise numbers are only meaningful as part of a system built on these units That doesn't sound particularly random. And in fact we agree here.

bbor 3y ago

Ok probably a dumb take but: doesn’t that “stable forms become more common over time” principle also apply to protons purely by principle of them being in opposition to electrons? Ie the field that coalesces into the quarks we see today because those quarks can ultimately form atoms. EDIT: after reading the great Wikipedia article above, and a connected one [1], I think I can restate: the only place we can look for these particles is in atoms, so it shouldn’t surprise us that they come in convenient forms to support atom formation. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accidental_symmetry https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accidental_symmetry

lagadu 3y ago

You're effectively asking why universal constants are the value that they are. Eventually there's no answer other than "it's a property of the universe we live in that we observed." If you keep asking why eventually you'll reach a ratio between two values: constants and you can't really go further deeper than that. Even if the values we have now end up not being the most fundamental, eventually you'll run into the fundamental ones and still have the same question unanswered.