• TheTechnician27@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    27
    ·
    edit-2
    2 days ago

    Are any particle physicists particularly concerned with matryoshkas? Like what’s the context here? If this is about matryoshka brains, that’s not, like, a thing particle physicists specifically care about.

    • arctanthrope@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      67
      ·
      2 days ago

      I would guess it refers to the fact that we used to think atoms were the smallest things, and then we found protons, neutrons, and electrons. then we thought those were the smallest things until we found quarks and gluons. and maybe some day we’ll find out that there’s something smaller inside quarks

      • DreamButt@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        2 days ago

        idk if you can get smaller than vibrations in a field. At least not without a different conceptual model. But I guess that’s always been the problem anyway

        • hirihit640@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          19 hours ago

          I’m no physicist, but afaik particle/wave duality was already a thing before quantum. So we were already representing the world as waves aka frequencies aka vibrations. But then we discovered that those waves were composed of smaller waves. The rabbit hole can go on ad infinitum, as we zoom in to these waves trying to figure out the equations behind them, but we keep finding more complexity, like a fractal.

      • TheTechnician27@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        18
        ·
        2 days ago

        That’s probably it.

        and maybe some day we’ll find out that there’s something smaller inside quarks

        I don’t think particle physicists in 2026 wake up in a cold sweat worried about preons. We are still taking measurements, but I don’t think theoreticians have any reason to invoke it – and IIRC its predictions have been outright contradicted experimentally.

      • Aquila@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        2 days ago

        I saw it as to see smaller and smaller you need higher energy photons. To get down to the planck length the smallest possible size the amount of energy you need to resolve that creates black holes

    • Alexander@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      2 days ago

      I’d guess that’s also how thermonuclear weapons are layers of conventional chemical, fission, and fusion material encased within each other like that. All these things come to mind.

    • microcapybara@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      2 days ago

      Maybe a joke about splitting an atom if you keep going far enough? Never mind that splitting a single atom releases an inconsequential amount of energy.

    • lugal@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      2 days ago

      Maybe the idea that there is always a smaller identical one which doesn’t make sense either since as much as there are smallest particles, there is a smallest matryoshka

    • lemmyman@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      2 days ago

      This seems wrong to me now but at first I thought of the demon core and its layered enclosure.