Sure, can you explain it to me and cite your evidence? Because that's the wikipedia article about protons, not an answer. The truth is this is a controversial area of physics heavy on theories and light on experimental data. The simple fact of the matter is we lack the measurement technology to understand the inner workings of a proton. Theories are just that.
grizzles: I don't understand what's going on in a proton.
Physicist: actually, we know about it very well.
grizzles: I don't understand what you're saying, and don't care to find out, so I'm just going to disagree with you and say you have no experimental evidence.
Physicist: we actually have terabytes of evidence describing the different quarks and gluons within protons and neutrons.
grizzles: I don't care, and I'd rather live in Anaximander's land of indefinites and superstition.
Are you a physicist? If so, why not post a link to your profile? Why the need for your made up dialogue instead of a substantive rebuttal containing information about your allegedly detailed knowledge of the inner workings of a proton?
BTW, you've misrepresented my position in 2/3 of your little sonnet. I said "light evidence, not no evidence" and I do care. The only substantive rebuttal I've received is from computerex and I responded to that.
Furthermore particle accelerators have been smashing protons for a long time to probe what's happening inside. The standard model of particle physics is validated by evidence and experiments. I don't think it is fair to say that we don't know what is happening inside a proton. There are many questions in physics still left unanswered but I don't think anyone would classify this as such.
How many constants are required by the standard model to make the math work? Doesn't that admit something is unsolved? I think it's probably accurate to say we don't know much about subatomic physics and because of the scale/measurability problem might not ever. The same is true of the expansiveness of the universe.
"Hurr durr, your physics isn't pretty enough and has too many coefficients to fit my childlike model of the universe. Clearly an approximation" - mimixco, 2020
We'd live in the Diamond Age. The molecular nanotechnology vision of the world would be true. Eg. we could create any material with the characteristics we wanted. Uncertainty wouldn't matter because there would be no compound uncertainty / decoherence. If some sub-process step in mnt fabrication failed because of inherent uncertainty, it could simply be repeated until it worked. We'd also understand how to build the tools to do this.
If we had such a "very good" understanding they wouldn't be spending billions to build the Electron-Ion collider at Brookhaven. Here's a good article about it, that's much more balanced than the QCD slanted wikipedia article:
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/07/scientists-endorse-b...
I especially like this bit about qcd:
> The mess is so complex that even basic properties of the proton remain unexplained. For example, its three quarks account for less than 5% of its mass, the rest arising somehow from energy of the virtual quarks and gluons.
Based on your comments above, though, I don't think watching this would change your opinion about anything. People have been more than polite in trying to help you fix your misunderstandings, but you refuse to absorb any new information or change your views when presented with new data.
1. A good understanding of something's basic/fundamental properties doesn't mean that there isn't other more meaningful research to be done and knowledge to be gained.
2. Particle physics in general is considered a mess. There are still many open problems in particle physics and a shiny new accelerator never hurts ;)
Sure there is still a lot more to learn about the inner structure of protons/neutrons but that doesn't mean that we don't have a decent understanding of the overall picture. There still isn't one unified theory that explains all the natural forces, but that doesn't mean that we don't understand gravity/electromagnetism/strong/weak forces in their own right.
