https://www.quantamagazine.org/inside-the-proton-the-most-complicated-thing-imaginable-20221019/

> The positively charged particle at the heart of the atom is an object
> of unspeakable complexity, one that changes its appearance depending
> on how it is probed. We’ve attempted to connect the proton’s many
> faces to form the most complete picture yet.

Aether Regained <AetherRegaind@invalid.com> wrote:

> https://www.quantamagazine.org/inside-the-proton-the-most-complicated-thing-im
aginable-20221019/
>
> > The positively charged particle at the heart of the atom is an object
> > of unspeakable complexity, one that changes its appearance depending
> > on how it is probed. We've attempted to connect the proton's many
> > faces to form the most complete picture yet.

Yes, and so what?

Jan

On 02/16/2024 01:04 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> Aether Regained <AetherRegaind@invalid.com> wrote:
>
>> https://www.quantamagazine.org/inside-the-proton-the-most-complicated-thing-im
> aginable-20221019/
>>
>>> The positively charged particle at the heart of the atom is an object
>>> of unspeakable complexity, one that changes its appearance depending
>>> on how it is probed. We've attempted to connect the proton's many
>>> faces to form the most complete picture yet.
>
> Yes, and so what?
>
> Jan
>

"Quanta" is a silly magazine, not even a "Nude Scientist".

On 02/16/2024 01:59 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
> On 02/16/2024 01:04 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>> Aether Regained <AetherRegaind@invalid.com> wrote:
>>
>>> https://www.quantamagazine.org/inside-the-proton-the-most-complicated-thing-im
>>>
>> aginable-20221019/
>>>
>>>> The positively charged particle at the heart of the atom is an object
>>>> of unspeakable complexity, one that changes its appearance depending
>>>> on how it is probed. We've attempted to connect the proton's many
>>>> faces to form the most complete picture yet.
>>
>> Yes, and so what?
>>
>> Jan
>>
>
> "Quanta" is a silly magazine, not even a "Nude Scientist".
>

Like, it's foolish when the diagrams show deflections,
when really all the particle interactions are slings.

It's all orbits around here, ....

The radionuclear often gets a back-seat in the usual
theory of kinetics and kinematics and electrodynamics,
about basically that the kinetic and electric make
for force carriers for each other in the magnetic,
while, the optical and nuclear, are quite similarly,
as so each others' complement, with the flux of the
speed of light, and, the fix of the proton's life.

kinetic
| v

strong nuclear
electric

electroweak
weak nuclear

^
| radionuclear

The optical is really special, and "color" and "colour"
in "information" and "force" kind of do go together.

Technicoulour: it's QCD and quarks _all the way down_.

Heh, pesudomomentum. "It's open."

It's simpler this sort of way when the atom's the graviton.

Of course it's for a quantum theory of gravity that's
a fall gravity, just with super-classical gravific flux
everywhere.

Gravific: "don't you mean gravitic?", "well, kind of,
except it's the well opposite the spike of the vector".

It's nice that theory arrives at this very neatly
and somewhat easily, while, fitting it to the model
is always a thing.

Yeah, just because the radionuclear is so slow in
the usual terrestrial setting, still is for just
setting mass and charge complementary each other magnetic,
and light and nuclear radiation complementary each other luminous.

While the usual field theory can make do with four forces
(those above) or five however you must include gravity,
then the idea of unifying it "nuclear-magnetic"
is sort of a thing.

Which starts with unifying "fall gravity" with
"the strong nuclear force", which is great because
it's known there's "asymptotic freedom" in the middle
of the atom.

J. J. Lodder:
> Aether Regained <AetherRegaind@invalid.com> wrote:
>
>> https://www.quantamagazine.org/inside-the-proton-the-most-complicated-thing-im
> aginable-20221019/
>>
>>> The positively charged particle at the heart of the atom is an object
>>> of unspeakable complexity, one that changes its appearance depending
>>> on how it is probed. We've attempted to connect the proton's many
>>> faces to form the most complete picture yet.
>
> Yes, and so what?
>
> Jan
>

I shared the article, as I found it interesting, especially that
electrons bounce off protons.

There is some interesting discussion of said article here:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39374020

Also, it is a good reminder that everything we know about the
atomic/subatomic world comes from the following types of experiments:

1. Spectral analysis. The oldest technique, but mostly refined in the
mid-late 1800s

2. The early trons/tubes e.g. electron discovery by J.J.Thomson in 1890.
The old analog CRT oscilloscope on which all of electronics depended is
essentially a glorified Crookes tube!

Tektronix: The Cathode Ray Tube - Window to Electronics
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jHGAnJjnNY0

Oscilloscopes and Transducers - An Introduction
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XxwDn9ag3gc

3. Scattering/collision experiments using radioactivity products
starting with Rutherford in 1905, and continuing with cosmic and
terrestrial particle accelerators, in conjunction with sophisticated
detectors.

On 2/17/24 2:33 PM, Aether Regained wrote:
> it is a good reminder that everything we know about the
> atomic/subatomic world comes from the following types of
> experiments:
>
> 1. Spectral analysis. The oldest technique, but mostly refined in
> the mid-late 1800s
>
> 2. The early trons/tubes e.g. electron discovery by J.J.Thomson in
> 1890. The old analog CRT oscilloscope on which all of electronics
> depended is essentially a glorified Crookes tube!
>
> Tektronix: The Cathode Ray Tube - Window to Electronics
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jHGAnJjnNY0
>
> Oscilloscopes and Transducers - An Introduction
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XxwDn9ag3gc
>
> 3. Scattering/collision experiments using radioactivity products
> starting with Rutherford in 1905, and continuing with cosmic and
> terrestrial particle accelerators, in conjunction with sophisticated
> detectors.

Hmmmm. How does "aether" model any of those?

Also, you forgot experiments like the existence of solids, liquids, and
gasses, lasers, and so on. As most of these involve generating or
detecting EM fields, other experiments are relevant, such as optical
diffraction, quantum interference and entanglement, radio transmission
and detection, etc....

Of all the experiments mentioned above, "aether" provides a good model
of just one or two of them.

Tom Roberts