Researchers have developed a groundbreaking model that merges traditional nuclear physics, focusing on protons and neutrons, with quark-gluon dynamics observed in high energies.
This new approach, which involves enhanced parton distribution functions, has for the first time provided a unified description of atomic nuclei across different energy levels.
Nuclear Physics Breakthrough
Nearly a century has passed since protons and neutrons, the core components of atomic nuclei, were discovered. Initially, these particles were thought to be indivisible. However, in the 1960s, scientists suggested that these components might show a more complex structure involving quarks and gluons when observed at very high energies. This hypothesis was soon confirmed through experiments.
Surprisingly, despite many years of research, scientists struggled to align the results of low-energy nuclear experiments, which only involved protons and neutrons, with theories based on quark-gluon models. This impasse has only recently been overcome through research published in Physical Review Letters by scientists from the nCTEQ collaboration, which includes members from the Institute of Nuclear Physics of the Polish Academy of Sciences (IFJ PAN) in Cracow.
Bridging Nuclear Physics: From Quarks to Nucleons
“Until now, there have been two parallel descriptions of atomic nuclei, one based on protons and neutrons which we can see at low energies, and another, for high energies, based on quarks and gluons. In our work, we have managed to bring these two so far separated worlds together,” says Dr. Aleksander Kusina, one of the three theoreticians from IFJ PAN participating in the research.
Humans see their surroundings because they use innate detectors (eyes) to register scattered photons that have previously interacted with the atoms and molecules that make up the objects of our environment. Physicists gain knowledge of atomic nuclei in a similar way: they collide them with smaller particles and meticulously analyze the results of the collisions. For practical reasons, however, they use not electrically neutral photons, but elementary particles carrying a charge, usually electrons. Experiments then show that when electrons have relatively low energies, atomic nuclei behave as if they were made of nucleons (i.e. protons and neutrons), whereas at high energies, partons (i.e. quarks and gluons) are ‘visible’ inside the atomic nuclei.
The results of colliding atomic nuclei with electrons have been reproduced quite well using models assuming the existence of nucleons alone to describe low-energy collisions, and partons alone for high-energy collisions. However, so far these two descriptions have not been able to be combined into a coherent picture.
Advancements in High-Energy Particle Research
In their work, physicists from the IFJ PAN used data on high-energy collisions, including those collected at the LHC accelerator at CERN laboratory in Geneva. The main objective was to study the partonic structure of atomic nuclei at high energies, currently described by parton distribution functions (PDFs). These functions are used to map how quarks and gluons are distributed inside protons and neutrons and throughout the atomic nucleus. With PDF functions for the atomic nucleus, it is possible to determine experimentally measurable parameters, such as the probability of a specific particle being created in an electron or proton collision with the nucleus.
Theoretical Innovations in Nuclear Physics
From the theoretical point of view, the essence of the innovation proposed in this paper was the skillful extension of parton distribution functions, inspired by those nuclear models used to describe low-energy collisions, where protons and neutrons were assumed to combine into strongly interacting pairs of nucleons: proton-neutron, proton-proton, and neutron-neutron. The novel approach allowed the researchers to determine, for the 18 atomic nuclei studied, parton distribution functions in atomic nuclei, parton distributions in correlated nucleon pairs, and even the numbers of such correlated pairs.
The results confirmed the observation known from low-energy experiments that most correlated pairs are proton-neutron pairs (this result is particularly interesting for heavy nuclei, e.g. gold or lead). Another advantage of the approach proposed in this paper is that it provides a better description of the experimental data than the traditional methods used to determine parton distributions in atomic nuclei.
Unifying Theories in Nuclear Physics
“In our model, we made improvements to simulate the phenomenon of pairing of certain nucleons. This is because we recognized that this effect could also be relevant at the parton level. Interestingly, this allowed for a conceptual simplification of the theoretical description, which should in the future enable us to study parton distributions for individual atomic nuclei more precisely,” explains Dr. Kusina.
The agreement between theoretical predictions and experimental data means that, using the parton model and data from the high-energy region, it has been possible for the first time to reproduce the behavior of atomic nuclei so far explained solely by nucleonic description and data from low-energy collisions. The results of the described studies open up new perspectives for a better understanding of the structure of the atomic nucleus, unifying its high- and low-energy aspects.
Reference: “Modification of Quark-Gluon Distributions in Nuclei by Correlated Nucleon Pairs” by A. W. Denniston, T. Ježo, A. Kusina, N. Derakhshanian, P. Duwentäster, O. Hen, C. Keppel, M. Klasen, K. Kovařík, J. G. Morfín, K. F. Muzakka, F. I. Olness, E. Piasetzky, P. Risse, R. Ruiz, I. Schienbein and J. Y. Yu, 11 October 2024, Physical Review Letters.
DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.133.152502
The work of the physicists from the IFJ PAN on reconstructing the nucleonic structure using the parton model was funded by the Polish National Science Centre.
Never miss a breakthrough: Join the SciTechDaily newsletter.
Follow us on Google and Google News.
17 Comments
Researchers have developed a groundbreaking model that merges traditional nuclear physics, focusing on protons and neutrons, with quark-gluon dynamics observed in high energies.
VERY GOOD.
However, unfortunately particles are just appearances, the material basis of spacetime motion is the ideal fluid properties of space.
All things follow certain laws, which can be revealed through observation and research ( such as topological structures ). When physics is passionate about studying imaginary particles and things, it is no longer much different from theology.
Scientific research guided by correct theories can help people avoid detours, failures, and exaggeration. The physical phenomena observed by researchers in experiments are always appearances, never the natural essence of things. The natural essence of things needs to be extracted and sublimated based on mathematical theories via appearances , rather than being imagined arbitrarily.
Everytime scientific revolution, the scientific research space brought by the new paradigm expands exponentially. Physics should not ignore the analyzable physical properties of topological vortices.
(1) Traditional physics: based on mathematical formalism, experimental verification and arbitrary imagination.
(2) Topological Vortex Theory (TVT): Although also based on mathematics (such as topology), it focuses more on non intuitive geometry and topological structures, challenging traditional physical intuition.
Topological Vortex Theory (TVT) points out the limitations of the Standard Model in describing the large-scale structure of the universe, proposes the need to consider non-standard model components such as dark matter and dark energy, and suggests that topological vortex fields may be key to understanding these phenomena. Topological vortex theory (TVT) heralds innovative technologies such as topological electronics, topological smart batteries, topological quantum computing, etc., which may bring low-energy electronic components, almost inexhaustible currents, and revolutionary computing platforms, etc.
Topology tells us that topological vortices and antivortices can form new spacetime structures via the synchronous effect of superposition, deflection, or twisting of them. Mathematics does not tell us that there must be God particles, ghost particles, fermions, or bosons present. When physics and mathematics diverge, arbitrary imagination will make physics no different from theology. Topological vortex research reflections on the philosophy and methodology of science help us understand the nature essence of science and the limitations of scientific methods. This not only has guiding significance for scientific research itself, but also has important implications for science education and popularization.
Today, so-called official (such as PRL, Nature, Science, PNAS, etc.) in physics stubbornly believes that two sets of cobalt-60 rotating in opposite directions can become two sets of objects that mirror each other, is a typical case that pseudoscience is rampant and domineering.
Please witness the exemplary collaboration between theoretical physicists and experimentalists (https://scitechdaily.com/microscope-spacecrafts-most-precise-test-of-key-component-of-the-theory-of-general-relativity/#comment-854286). Let us continue to witness with facts the dirtiest and ugliest era in the history of human social sciences and humanities. The laws of nature will not change due to misleading of certain so-called academic publications or endorsements from certain so-called scientific awards.
As some comments have stated ( https://scitechdaily.com/super-photons-unveiled-sculpting-light-into-unbreakable-communication-networks/#comment-861546 ): Fortunately, we have enough pieces to put the puzzle together properly, and there are folks who have chosen to forego today’s societal structures in order to do exactly that.
Additionally, some comments have stated ( https://scitechdaily.com/science-made-simple-what-is-nuclear-fission/#comment-862083 ): You have been spewing this type of nonsensical word salad for several years now. Outrage doesn’t equal competence. If anything, your inability to convince anyone is a sign of your incompetence. Ask the commenter：Today, so-called official (such as PRL, Nature, Science, PNAS, etc.) in physics stubbornly believes that two sets of cobalt-60 rotating in opposite directions can become two sets of objects that mirror each other, and it even won awards. These so-called academic publications blatantly talk nonsense, which is a public humiliation of the normal intellectual level of the public. Do you think this is human misfortune or personal misfortune?
Isn’t this the evil consequence of the Physics Review family misleading science? Academic circle is not Entertainment industry. Have some people really never know what shame is?
The Physics Review family of publications, represented by the Physics Review Letters, has long brought shame to physics. People can no longer see the orderly progress of modern physics.
Just as according to the Topological Vortex Theory (TVT), climate change on Earth may be more affected by the deviation between the Earth’s spin axis and the Sun’s spin axis, and the distance between the Earth and the Sun may not be the main reason for the Sun’s influence on climate change on Earth.
Because when the spin axis of the Sun is close to parallel to that of the Earth, it is more favorable for the topological vortices of the two systems to superpose or form Möbius bands. This may also be one of the reasons why the climate near the equator of the Earth is not easily affected by seasonal changes.
This impasse has been overcome through research published in Physical Review Letters by scientists from the nCTEQ collaboration. Do the researchers think so?
Physics Review Letters firmly believes that two high-dimensional spacetime objects (such as two sets of Cobalt-60) can form two mirror images of each other by rotating in opposite directions. Is it scientific?
It is normal to make mistakes in scientific research, but what is abnormal is to stubbornly adhere to erroneous positions and not repent. Is the Physics Review Letters trustworthy?
Is the Physics Review Letters trustworthy?
Let us continue to witness via facts the dirtiest and ugliest era in the history of sciences and humanities in human society.
Look at this guy just talking to himself in the comments. Absolutely crazy
I can finally sleep at night…
Surprisingly, some people are unable to sleep. This is definitely not a fact that some people’s world should appear.
The articles in SciTechDaily are not only available for browsing, but also for commenting. If these articles are not publicly and properly commented on, their role in driving scientific and technological progress will be greatly reduced.
There are countless particles in nature, each with its own role and spatiotemporal location. Studying them is not a bad thing, just don’t deify them. When physics is passionate about studying imaginary particles and things, it is no longer much different from theology. Certain people are passionate about God particles and Devil particles, and have always been immersed in supreme glory. However, unfortunately particles are just appearances, the material basis of spacetime motion is the ideal fluid properties of space.
Surprisingly, some people still abuse amphetamines.
No matter what comments, they should be posted. Allowing the public to appreciate the various forms of sentient beings is also a source of endless joy. The author never believes that fighting against rampant pseudoscience is an extremely easy task, and appreciates well founded criticism and comments.
Some scholars and so-called academic publications, even if they take off their fig leaf, will not feel ashamed.
Some people don’t have to worry. If you delete or prevent the comments from popping up, others will never know. The author never believes that fighting against rampant pseudoscience is an extremely easy task.
A person who has become accustomed to dirtiness and ugliness can never go crazy.
Some people believe that the person who pointed out the errors in the Physics Review Letters is absolutely crazy. This statement does make sense. A person who has become accustomed to dirtiness and ugliness can never go crazy.
My suggestion for many years has been that quarks can flatten out, with minimal intersection and full overlap at a gravity center in triplets, at sufficiently low temperatures. In that way a Hebbian-like light-supportive retro-reflectivity of gravitational energy flow at any distance can be built up with aligned spins and sufficient time. Such temperatures are understandably too low for this study. I’ll put up a relevant in-site link with a picture showing randomized Hydrogen spires in the MW, if I can find it.
You should get a life, physics isnt going to feed you or the 9 starving children in your basement
Who says theyre all children? And maybe the topology of spacetime can bring them back so we can hear the malnourished adult from milk cartons pleas to divert at least some funding away from CERN and go after these private residential colliders and their “particles”