> The results suggested that in even higher-energy collisions, the proton would appear as a cloud made up almost entirely of gluons. The gluon dandelion is exactly what QCD predicts.
I find the proton as a gluon dandelion cloud enthralling
> But decades of research have revealed a deeper truth
Truth is a strange thing in science. In normal language people would say “our latest interpretation”. Science would be more honest if it used language honestly.
I get what you’re saying, but the measurements are real. In some sense they are the truth.
In the article this refers to the finding that the quark is more complex than three valence quarks.
The measurements indicating that the three-quark-model is incomplete are overwhelmingly conclusive, so some degree of certainty in the language is warranted in my view.
> The results suggested that in even higher-energy collisions, the proton would appear as a cloud made up almost entirely of gluons. The gluon dandelion is exactly what QCD predicts.
I find the proton as a gluon dandelion cloud enthralling
The implication of this framing is that neutrons are considerably simpler.
I find that rather surprising.
Neutrons are just as complex, they’re much harder to study though.
I don't expect that to be the case, it's likely that the article simply focuses on the proton.
> But decades of research have revealed a deeper truth
Truth is a strange thing in science. In normal language people would say “our latest interpretation”. Science would be more honest if it used language honestly.
I get what you’re saying, but the measurements are real. In some sense they are the truth.
In the article this refers to the finding that the quark is more complex than three valence quarks.
The measurements indicating that the three-quark-model is incomplete are overwhelmingly conclusive, so some degree of certainty in the language is warranted in my view.
Not sure what this has to do with the article, it just seems like a nitpick. What did science do to you?