Why did I pick this topic while also delusionally feverous... 🤒 I really hope this was at least semi coherent Dodge computer viruses and check how ESET can protect you or your business and how they support science on this link: www.eset.com/uk/protecting-art-smart/
There's a connection here. My thinking: Gravity is a monopole (attraction), EM is a dipole(positive and negative charge), and Strong force is a tri-pole (three color-charges). But then, what is the weak force? My knowledge is limited, but eager to know if I am spouting nonsense or not.
@@meinkamph5327 Technically, it's microgravity. Due to nothing being perfectly sperical/symmetric. Perturbations in the field always cause microfluctuations in the strenght. But you are right too, we don't feel those tiny changes.
In the greek man's defense, it isn't his fault we named something divisible the "atom", when he clearly intended for the name to apply to whatever the smallest, indivisible particle was...
Theoretical particle physicist here. As nice and interesting this presentation was, I have a problem with the way you introduce "the inifnity problem" of QCD. It has long been known that the Landau pole (that is, the divergence to infinity of the strong coupling constant) does not imply a "physical" infinity, but only signals that the theoretical framework used to describe QCD breaks down. Landau poles occur in the so-called perturbative approach to QCD (and more generally of Quantum field theory), and only tell you that the perturbative expansion (around small couplings) is no longer valid, mathematically speaking. In short, the "infinity problem" only is a problem with the perturbative description of QCD, which is solved by switching to a non-perturbative framework. And this has long been understood. Now the difficulty lies in finding a way to carry out calculations non-perturbatively.
He never said that this issue was resolved yesterday. He simply stated that at first it appeared to be an infinity, and then later more understanding was had.. as usual.
7:40 "Electromagnetic constant decreases by 10% at very far distances". Wrong. It decreases with distance, yes, but it is already smallest and stays ~1/137 for all distances we work with, from light years to atom sizes. It is larger at VERY SMALL distances. For example, at distances of 10^-17m (about 1/100th of proton size) it is ~1/127.
@@vats_chauhan functions can be always decreasing but never get lower than a certain value. Physical answer: the elementary charge changes with distance only due to quantum interaction. At large distances we can neglect these interactions and consider only classical electromagnetism. However there is still a non-zero elementary charge in the classical case. The classical electromagnetism is perfectly fine for most real life cases/distances.
To my mind, it took this long for people who grew up in the age of dial-up to get into positions to write their own research papers. Only people who have suffered through the dial-up era can truly understand infinity.
♾️+1 goes to infinity but simple ♾️ isn't expanding thus it will shrink in our expanding existence and thus goes to 0 over infinite time. It must be ♾️+1 but our measurements aren't accurate enough to measure the last 1 that someone forgot to carry through the calculation 😅
A nice video, Dr. Miles; thank you. In your intro, if you replace “light bulb” with “bungee cord,” tension _increases_ with distance, and the example flips from baffling to intuitive. The idea that the cord or “string” eventually snaps also becomes easier to understand. There is nothing wrong with using this easier intuition since one can argue that the “flux tubes” created by the strong force truly are the universe's smallest rubber bands, as Leonard Susskind first noted in 1969. You need math to make precise calculations, but you do not need it to understand the concept. Erratum - a possibly confusing statement: At 8:15, you define “asymptotic freedom” immediately after describing the _increasing_ tension between quarks as they move farther apart. Asymptotic freedom refers to the earlier part of your statement when the quarks were close. That is when the rubber band is very loose, and the quarks do not pay much attention to each other. This indifference emulates freedom at the asymptotic limit of _closeness,_ rather than at the asymptotic limit of _distance._ That freedom is, of course, utterly different from, say, an electron and a positron bound by electric charge tension. For electric tension, asymptotic freedom comes instead with extreme distance. Conversely, for an electron and a positron, the attractive force nominally approaches infinity as they get closer. Infinities are prevented in that case by mutual annihilation. Why the attraction does not grow infinite when an electron goes through a proton, as it does in an s orbital, is a more complicated and interesting problem. For quarks, the flattening of attraction that prevents infinities is, as you described, the “snapping" of the bungee cord to create two mesons. That relaxation is unrelated to asymptotic freedom.
@@linmal2242yes! This thought experiment becomes terrifying if, instead of walking across a field, you visualize yourself hanging in mid-air at the bottom of that bouncy, stretchy bungee cord, waiting for the inevitable… SNAP!!… after one too many terrifying reversals at the bottom! I recommend _not_ thinking about that image. Nope! Just don't do it! (You're doing it again… :) This is why it's dangerous to play with the nuclear force!
The question is, for that last positron and electron, is the attractive force a real force or a convenient analogy for the increase in probability of interaction once one's proximity to the other is within twice the Bohr radius? At a certain range, the probability of interaction is essentially 1, but never quite 1, as otherwise we'd be discussing infinity again and one really is only stuck with that when working with Planck units, where our math remains a bit fuzzy. So, is it a real force that measurably increases or an artifact of extremely high probabilities reaching the top of the curve? So, we inject more energy to narrow it down and measure the two photons... In this instance, it's essentially the inverse of the problem and it's easy to make the defective analogy that with increasing distance, the force increases, but that would lead to one quark being here on Earth, the partner being orbiting Sag A* and infinite force now is accelerating the partners together, which of course falls apart due to scale and the path, it's at close ranges such things seem correct and distance confounds things as it gets macroscopic. Which is precisely what was observed with that plateau. The only reason it doesn't yet be observed to fall off as distance increases isn't that it won't, it's that we've only hit the limits of what we currently can observe. The math never needs to meet some intuitive expectation, it just has to match up with observations, if it doesn't, we have to change the math to match the observations, for if we change the observations to meet the expected math, it's no longer science, but fiction. So, if one gets results that don't meet one's expectations, replicate it, have others replicate it, that is a good thing, as we're closing in on a superior answer. ~There is no such thing as a force of gravity. Gravity is merely mass-energy's way of telling space-time to go get bent. Me
The universe is a weave of bungee-cords. (For the rest of the post, please imagine our 3-D world mapped to a 2-d tightly woven net, or web, or similar permeable surface.) Atoms are multi-dimensional features. Some of the material is visible directly; measurable and quantifiable. The remainder of the particles are “just beyond” on the other side of the surface. Stretch the “fabric of space” far enough (adding energy), and some of the atoms can pull through some of their hidden material into our observable universe. Alternatively, they can pop fully through the net and become un-tethered to our observable universe. An unrelated aside: Presently I hold the unproven hypothesis that atoms are like knots of bungee cord loops. Given no outside influence, they will automatically attempt to find their lowest energy state.
That's three of us who instantly thought of elastic & springs. And do we really know the strong force will or won't snap, allowing everything to fly apart or contract back to an equilibriam of forces
So, if the rubber band snaps, it creates two new rubber bands out of nothing (the Void)? How do we explain something coming from nothing just to maintain the status quo? It has to come from somewhere.
Note to 6 year old self: Don't take your dad's watch apart to see how it works. Throw it against the wall. It will be much easier to explain off as an accident.
I love these kinds of results in physics. Why does the strong force only apply at short distances? Because if the distance is large enough, the quarks just bond to something else. What else do they bond to? The quarks created by the energy you put into tearing them apart! Amazing!
0:23 Minor nitpick here, but the reason we don't feel the Sun's gravity is _not_ because the Sun is far away. Rather, it's because we're in orbit around it. When you're in orbit around something, you're literally in free-fall toward it, but moving sideways fast enough that you always miss hitting it. Since we're in orbit around the Sun, and thus in free-fall toward it, we don't feel its gravity, just like you'd feel weightless in a falling elevator. If the Sun were actually far enough away that we didn't feel its gravity, the Earth couldn't be in orbit around it. The same deal happens with the Moon's orbit around Earth.
Wow, this one was so cool! I’m constantly fascinated by quantum physics even though I have only a surface level understanding. I really appreciate science communication that strikes the right balance between depth and comprehensibility.
Renormalisation is often seen as handwaving but it often to get around unknowns such as this, we renorminaise this effect most of the time, I imagine most of the renormalisation's we apply have some deeper properties that are yet to be explained such as this.
I assume you mean renormalization. I'm neither a scientist nor a mathematician, but I've seen the smoke and mirrors of renormalization in action. And yes, the infinities that arise should indicate unknown properties/conditions or some failure of the math. But, more typically, the renormalization is accepted without any concerted effort to find the deficiency.
@@triplec8375 Correct< I am a layman too with an interest, I Plan to go back and study in the next couple of years so I am just dipping my toes into the actual mathematical side. I edited the comment so people actually understand rather than to hide my mistake. I like to learn rom them not hide them ;).
@@nigelrhodes4330 I wish you great success in your future studies. We would all certainly be better off if more people could admit to making mistakes. There's no doubt that I make more than my share of them. Thanks for your reply. I can now boast that I know a Rhodes scholar
The coolest feature of the S.F. is JETS, that spray of particulate at collision sites, spewing forth powerful excitations of streaming matter. Sorta like UA-cam.
This is a really interesting choice of topic for a video. I’m not a scientist but a keen learner, and the strong force often gets mentioned but never explained. Thanks for taking us on a deeper look.
Hi Ben, it was indeed coherent. I did not knew the work of Alexander Deur, I knew a little Stanley Brodky. Alexander Deur is in fact French, as I am, and did his PHD at Clermont-Ferrand University. I did not knew his role in experiments that led to shed light on the nature of strong force. Very interesting.
A nice "pictorial" introduction to Brodsky et al's remarkable LFWF approach to QCD dynamics! Always a pleasure to see more details of our work ( as theoretical physicists everywhere) brought out in understandable form for the public who supports it. I would merely caution (as you very likely know, and DO hint at) that Landau poles are likely, in each QFT, a result of our Standard Model ultimately being an effective theory (EFT) of the "real" underlying theory of nature which none of us know yet. One could probably state that our current theories are no more "wrong" than Newton's theories of mechanics, especially in a lay environment where the Standard model is often described as "sick" due to divergencies which are discussed by non-experts. I only hope I live long enough to much more of nature's fundamental law(s) uncovered in my lifetime.
Great intro lecture Doc. Have you every thought about a "limit" to the number of virtual particles in the void? And the possibility of changing amounts of energy required to snatch them into existence due to the density of the void (just 1 math part of the formula we don't know (completely))? And possibly as the universe expands an increasing amount of energy is required? So in the beginning it would take very little energy to pull them from the void (big bang). Just thinking and by no means proclaim this as a theory or my beliefs as I haven't found or solved all the holes in it! Best
*_OMG!_* 3:21 As a little boy _(I was odd, precocious, and read a lot. 'nuff said?)_ and fascinated by experimental physics, at some point I thought *"Woa. **_That's like firing an 8 cylinder engine against a steel wall and then looking at the pieces to figure out how it works!"_* That was mid-1960s. I turned 70 last week. Never ever encountered that analogy in the wild! greets / thanks --ben_
2^32-1, everything that can transform, can transform independently. So a photon can transform independently. If you held something down, all the tiny parts would rotate.
ESET has worked for me for several years. It has been 100% effective. It does NOT slow down my computer noticeably. I am NOT employed by ESET, nor do I receive any compensation for this post.
We need videos of clock accelerators smashing mechanical watches and showing high speed recordings of what exactly happens. But there are other chanels doing this kind of things.
Thank you Ben. Very interesting. My first degree is in Math with Physics (60 years ago!), and I am still interested in following developments in physics.
Richard Feynman also got bested by swinging a bucket around in a circle. This bucket had a super fluid inside and was superconductive. It gave Richard a big headache upon striving to picture what was happening to the fluid inside the bucket. As you look out astronomically this is what occurs inside a neutron star. What is felt to happen is small magnetic pins run through the neutron star as the magnetic field is expelled from inside a superconductor producing these pins running through the star. A neutron star thus becomes more strange than we can imagine even before it is filled with strange material near the core.
Pretending for a moment that I actually understand what’s being said: Is it possible that the bond between quarks only appears to plateau after a degree of separation while, in fact, the quarks are either incapable of separating beyond a certain distance OR that the first quark simply follows the other(s) OR, lastly, that an entirely new quark can be created to replace any quark which is moved too far away from its coupling?
Amazing how QM uses color theory to explain the Universe at a particle level. Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but Einstein's formula originally was derived to explain how to account for all the mass of a nuclear particle, in spite of the fact that quarks only account for a small %. Originally, the formula was m=E/C^2 which is far more important in thinking of mass in relation to energy. Thank you for your videos, I am now hooked :)
It is misleading to represent anticolors as subtractive primaries. For example, red plus antired equals black. However, red plus cyan equals white. Also, your graphical depiction of gluon flux tubes is wrong. Check out what Sabina Hossenfelder has to say on that topic in her blog.
At 6:06, You state that red and cyan make black. If you’re talking about the colors of light (not pigment, or paint): Red plus cyan (in equal proportions) makes white. My point is consistent with RGB= white, because cyan= G+B. (R=red; G=green; B=blue).
Fascinating insightful commentary. Is it known if the quarks that suddenly appear out of the void were always there or do they actually just pop into existence somehow from out of nothing? If they were always there is would be a finite classical universe as none have ever been lost or torn apart.
Landau Pole... 1/3 whenever you see this number, think resonance. The standing wave has it's fundamental anti nodes at 1/3 and 2/6. Now look at where the plateau begins.
So as I understand this strong force it must have a form of F=k1*e^(x*k2) because it is only possibility to make such derivative: dF/dx=k3*e^(x*k2) possible to increments with distance as well as F=k1*e^(x*k2). Where k1, k2, k3 are respectievly constants and e^x is exponent. k1 is in unit [N], k2 [1/m] and k3 [N/m].
Brilliant video! I love this stuff so much. Who ever thought the humble proton and neutron would be so insanely complex! How far we have come. I remember asking my high school science teacher, if neutrons have no charge what's holding the protons together? He thought for a minute & said actually, I have no idea, the power of prayer?lol).
There are some interesting demonstrations using bubbles to model surface tension geometries. Some crude parallels could be shown to describe the boundaries between bubbles that represent electron obitals and atomic bonds. In general, configurations that reduce stress define the final structure. Learning how to calculate those stresses will be the key to unlocking physics at any level. The strong force is just another manifestation of stress in our universe. We just don't fully understand all of its parameters yet.
I was listening to StarTalk earlier this week and NGT was talking about this! And it blew my mind... So even if there's a fall off a short distance but exponential resistance at longer distances, doesn't that mean the universe should be filled with and "infinite" amount of quarks? Cause quarks/gluons "splitting" as they're pulled apart in a black hole should at least double the amount of quarks we have. Am I understanding this totally wrong? This subject is so interesting, I would love more clarification.
If they are splitting and creating doubles of themselves while INSIDE a black hole, then they are contained within the event horizon of the black hole and cannot escape And since inside the black hole, the intense gravity prevents any expansion, it doesn't seem that there would be any splitting happening since splitting happens only when the particles are pulled apart.
I presume you mean at the event horizon - since nothing can escape a black hole. But no, consider - matter has to collapse to form a black hole in the first place. When a virtual quark/anti-quark pair manifest at the edge of the event horizon and the gravity rips them apart causing one to fall into the black hole and one to escape, the energy used to produce those new particles comes from the black hole itself - causing the black hole to shrink. Essentially Hawking Radiation is just releasing the energy of the matter that makes up the black hole in the first place.
Fundamental forces of matter: 1) Strong force = 1 with a range of influence of 10^(-15) meter. 2) Electromagnetic force = 1/137 with an infinite range of influence. 3) Weak force = 10^(-6) with a range of influence of 10^(-18) meter. 4) Gravity force = 6(10^(-39)) with an infinite range of influence. Fundamental Force Concepts. Georgia State University, College of Arts and Science, Department of Physics and Astronomy. 21 December 2012. 10^(-15) meter = 0.0000000000000001 meter = 0.00000000000000393701 inch
I love how people quote me on a daily basis. I was the person that introduced the idea that infinity in the mathematics means something has gone slightly wrong back around 2003. Before that nobody ever dared say that in physics. After that it is literally became dogma.
1983 just after my HS diploma. I told most of my friends whom all think me insane how time is false and the universe is infinite. I remain a socialist economics physics minor since.
particles must essentially be vortices in spacetime. The trick is to find the math to describe the stable shapes. Spherical shapes could oscillate in and out like a vibration but that seems like this would radiate, so it seems toroid's and higher order knots look like more promising geometries where the energy can be contained in a rotation of a thin string like structure with an external pressure from the fabric of space.
May be it historical, but gold . We could not explain neither the boundary of atom nor that of proton. Why collapse is it QCD spacing ? Experiments can see when energy spill over Situation is at all cost entangled . Measurement problem with reference of statistics as defined. You are right w.r.t strong coupling digit after two decimal is for floating photons without mass. No mass below 1/3 of proton scale !!!
08:05 _... but when they're pulled apart, the energy required to separate them increases until they're essentially impossible to move further away._ I once learnt that the energy is still finite but sufficient for the production of a complete quark- antiquark- pair, and you get mesons instead of separate quarks. For example if you try to pull a red up quark out of a proton, a new red up quark will be produced alongside an anti- red anti- up- quark will be produced and yoy end up with the proton unchanged and you are holding a neutral meson in your hand. Maybe, a down and an anti- down is produced, any you end up with a neutron and a positive meson. I don't know if both can happen. 08:12 _This is called asymptotic freedom ..._ Isn't this called confinement, and asymptotic freedom is when the quarks are close together?
yes. but a note on color--there really is no such thing as a "red" quark. QCD is invariant under color rotations, so it's just a quark of any color, or combination. It's like in atomic physics were we quantize angular momentum against the z-axis. The actual axis doesn't mean anything, but we need to pick one to do math.
*We frame everything for our prospective and we are very small limited thinkers. The only logical answer is we are only one of other infinite bag bangs. The universe is endless and time never had a beginning and will never end. The only changes is the conversion of energy to matter and back again, forever meaning the universe is never the same but always changing shape and form through space.*
I asked this question elsewhere but: With the Big Rip idea of the end of the universe, could the pull of spacetime cause Quark pairs to split and capture new quarks, forming new pairs, which then also split, etc etc.? If that happens, basically everywhere all at the same time, could that runaway creation of new quark pairs effectively be a new big bang?
Yep, the 5 Dimension i talk about little more wide then the one you talk about. You have to understand Infinity different from math to Quantum math, things got other rules in Quantum math 5 Dimension. 5 Dimension are what i call it, "The non time existence in time." In other words Infinity are not linear, you need to go into 5 D. The Pythagoras Triangle 3A 4B 5C When use infinity in Normal math this model breaks even when our logic says A B C are same value. This are here my Ü make sense to use. Going on to Infinity graph and the triangle reappear in simple term say'ed. Result looks like this. 3Ü=A (A = 3 infinity long) 4Ü=B 5Ü=C Normal graph and you can't see anything. Also: Ü*0=1 1/0=Ü 1/Ü=0 All this make sense in 5D rule system, it can even predict light entanglement. Einstein things lightspeed ... Dark matter and energy plus magnetar blackholes. At least give the tool to understand it.
Another force that gets stronger with distance: force on an object attached to an anchored spring as it stretches the spring to a greater distances (until the spring breaks).
Uh, the force is constant - potential grows linearly though so it’s kind of like a weird spring that doesn’t fight back at you more but stores more and more energy. If I remember my string tension simulation correctly. Of course that one was merely a quenched simulation, but for the purposes of this computation is actually appropriate.
Never mind the fever, you presented this with exceptional clarity. Thank you so much. Actually take care of that fever, the world needs you whole and well.
The strong force works much like a string, and just like a string, it breaks at some moment. But the energy put in at that moment, does not go away, and results in new particles created. Not either will the energy put into the string go away, but in this case it results in vibration and heat.
"My full apologies, Mr Bond," Dr Miles rasped as he activated the diamond synchotron laser. Bond won't be back in "the Infinite Solution". (btw, my reaction to this vid is "Um .... What!?!" and "I'll need to watch this again.". *scratching head emoji*)
How do we know that electrons are not... symptoms or side effects of the strong force? The picture (towards the end) of a couple of fundamental particles bursting into new particles is blowing my mind right now.
my bad... you can disregard my previous question... i should have watched further, wherein you share that the coupling constants aren't actually constant as they change with distance.
Strong Force: for by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones, or dominions, or rulers, or authorities-all things have been created through Him and for Him. He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together. Colossians 1:16-17
That could partly explain why backhoes and matter end up in the same neighborhood. But it doesn't explain why the blackhole has a big influence on normal matter. There's got to be another force that gets activated when normal matter collapses into a blackhole.
So the strong force when neuons are close to gether is weak but as they are separated get stronger would mean that there is a force that has an elastic resistance and when at its maximum distance is rigid
They should have asked a mechanical engineer. This is exactly the behavior of a spring. As you extend a spring the force gets larger and larger, until a limiting point where you cannot increase the distance any more - the spring is as its maximum extent. But then the material the spring is formed from itself deforms and the distance again increases. The spring is no longer extending, the material itself is extending.
I thought it was a given after the development of QCD in the 1970s that quark/anti-quark pairs were created and experimentally observed via jets. So the strong force could never be observed as becoming larger than that required to produce these quark/anti-quark pairs.
Why did I pick this topic while also delusionally feverous... 🤒 I really hope this was at least semi coherent
Dodge computer viruses and check how ESET can protect you or your business and how they support science on this link: www.eset.com/uk/protecting-art-smart/
Get well soon
There's a connection here. My thinking: Gravity is a monopole (attraction), EM is a dipole(positive and negative charge), and Strong force is a tri-pole (three color-charges). But then, what is the weak force? My knowledge is limited, but eager to know if I am spouting nonsense or not.
You look healthier being sick than I do when I'm well. The strong force must be with you.
We don't feel the sun's gravity because we are in orbit around the sun.
Just like astronauts in the space station don't feel the gravity of earth.
@@meinkamph5327 Technically, it's microgravity. Due to nothing being perfectly sperical/symmetric. Perturbations in the field always cause microfluctuations in the strenght. But you are right too, we don't feel those tiny changes.
In the greek man's defense, it isn't his fault we named something divisible the "atom", when he clearly intended for the name to apply to whatever the smallest, indivisible particle was...
Yeah atom probably would have been a better word to use for the fundamental particles in retrospect.
Well for all intends and purposes in this world, applied Physics (chemistry) reigns supreme, and there Atoms are Atoms.
An atom can be split. Making that atom divisible.
@@darknasetheir.
ohhh now i get the name i think
Theoretical particle physicist here. As nice and interesting this presentation was, I have a problem with the way you introduce "the inifnity problem" of QCD. It has long been known that the Landau pole (that is, the divergence to infinity of the strong coupling constant) does not imply a "physical" infinity, but only signals that the theoretical framework used to describe QCD breaks down. Landau poles occur in the so-called perturbative approach to QCD (and more generally of Quantum field theory), and only tell you that the perturbative expansion (around small couplings) is no longer valid, mathematically speaking.
In short, the "infinity problem" only is a problem with the perturbative description of QCD, which is solved by switching to a non-perturbative framework. And this has long been understood. Now the difficulty lies in finding a way to carry out calculations non-perturbatively.
What happens is that beyond the asymptote, in reality, a new pair of quarks is created with the pent-up tension energy,.
And without being perturbed at the result.
He never said that this issue was resolved yesterday. He simply stated that at first it appeared to be an infinity, and then later more understanding was had.. as usual.
@@konberner170althoughhe did say it was "finally" solved.
PERTURBING
7:40 "Electromagnetic constant decreases by 10% at very far distances".
Wrong.
It decreases with distance, yes, but it is already smallest and stays ~1/137 for all distances we work with, from light years to atom sizes.
It is larger at VERY SMALL distances. For example, at distances of 10^-17m (about 1/100th of proton size) it is ~1/127.
If it increases at quantum distances than conversely should decrease at zero quantum distances .Why it's already at its lowest
@@vats_chauhan functions can be always decreasing but never get lower than a certain value. Physical answer: the elementary charge changes with distance only due to quantum interaction. At large distances we can neglect these interactions and consider only classical electromagnetism. However there is still a non-zero elementary charge in the classical case. The classical electromagnetism is perfectly fine for most real life cases/distances.
To my mind, it took this long for people who grew up in the age of dial-up to get into positions to write their own research papers. Only people who have suffered through the dial-up era can truly understand infinity.
Forget 56k, ask the ARPANet guys that had to make do with between 50 and 1200 bps.
I'm still using my Radio Shack TRS-80 computer. It is infinitely slow.
And yet there is still a telecom who calls itself Infinity. It's what you get when you call their customer service. Thanks for the flashback laugh!
Good hypothesis but you can never test it. Would be deemed unethical to subject any human to these horrors again.
Try waiting on the phone for some sort of government agency to pick up and speak to an actual person, it is very comparable
It's a big relief that we have to deal with infinity and not infinity + 1
Precisely, at least it's a closed set
I can't even count it.
Next year, CERN will announce that they've discovered the infinity +1 particle.
@@Daniel-jm8we The Ultra-Higgs!
♾️+1 goes to infinity but simple ♾️ isn't expanding thus it will shrink in our expanding existence and thus goes to 0 over infinite time. It must be ♾️+1 but our measurements aren't accurate enough to measure the last 1 that someone forgot to carry through the calculation 😅
A nice video, Dr. Miles; thank you. In your intro, if you replace “light bulb” with “bungee cord,” tension _increases_ with distance, and the example flips from baffling to intuitive. The idea that the cord or “string” eventually snaps also becomes easier to understand.
There is nothing wrong with using this easier intuition since one can argue that the “flux tubes” created by the strong force truly are the universe's smallest rubber bands, as Leonard Susskind first noted in 1969. You need math to make precise calculations, but you do not need it to understand the concept.
Erratum - a possibly confusing statement: At 8:15, you define “asymptotic freedom” immediately after describing the _increasing_ tension between quarks as they move farther apart. Asymptotic freedom refers to the earlier part of your statement when the quarks were close. That is when the rubber band is very loose, and the quarks do not pay much attention to each other. This indifference emulates freedom at the asymptotic limit of _closeness,_ rather than at the asymptotic limit of _distance._
That freedom is, of course, utterly different from, say, an electron and a positron bound by electric charge tension. For electric tension, asymptotic freedom comes instead with extreme distance. Conversely, for an electron and a positron, the attractive force nominally approaches infinity as they get closer. Infinities are prevented in that case by mutual annihilation. Why the attraction does not grow infinite when an electron goes through a proton, as it does in an s orbital, is a more complicated and interesting problem.
For quarks, the flattening of attraction that prevents infinities is, as you described, the “snapping" of the bungee cord to create two mesons. That relaxation is unrelated to asymptotic freedom.
'Snaps'..... Bungees.... No thanks !
@@linmal2242yes! This thought experiment becomes terrifying if, instead of walking across a field, you visualize yourself hanging in mid-air at the bottom of that bouncy, stretchy bungee cord, waiting for the inevitable… SNAP!!… after one too many terrifying reversals at the bottom!
I recommend _not_ thinking about that image. Nope! Just don't do it! (You're doing it again… :)
This is why it's dangerous to play with the nuclear force!
The question is, for that last positron and electron, is the attractive force a real force or a convenient analogy for the increase in probability of interaction once one's proximity to the other is within twice the Bohr radius? At a certain range, the probability of interaction is essentially 1, but never quite 1, as otherwise we'd be discussing infinity again and one really is only stuck with that when working with Planck units, where our math remains a bit fuzzy. So, is it a real force that measurably increases or an artifact of extremely high probabilities reaching the top of the curve?
So, we inject more energy to narrow it down and measure the two photons...
In this instance, it's essentially the inverse of the problem and it's easy to make the defective analogy that with increasing distance, the force increases, but that would lead to one quark being here on Earth, the partner being orbiting Sag A* and infinite force now is accelerating the partners together, which of course falls apart due to scale and the path, it's at close ranges such things seem correct and distance confounds things as it gets macroscopic. Which is precisely what was observed with that plateau. The only reason it doesn't yet be observed to fall off as distance increases isn't that it won't, it's that we've only hit the limits of what we currently can observe.
The math never needs to meet some intuitive expectation, it just has to match up with observations, if it doesn't, we have to change the math to match the observations, for if we change the observations to meet the expected math, it's no longer science, but fiction. So, if one gets results that don't meet one's expectations, replicate it, have others replicate it, that is a good thing, as we're closing in on a superior answer.
~There is no such thing as a force of gravity. Gravity is merely mass-energy's way of telling space-time to go get bent.
Me
The Strong Force is made of rubber. It's that simple. Now I'm going to cure cancer, brb.
The universe is a weave of bungee-cords. (For the rest of the post, please imagine our 3-D world mapped to a 2-d tightly woven net, or web, or similar permeable surface.)
Atoms are multi-dimensional features. Some of the material is visible directly; measurable and quantifiable. The remainder of the particles are “just beyond” on the other side of the surface.
Stretch the “fabric of space” far enough (adding energy), and some of the atoms can pull through some of their hidden material into our observable universe. Alternatively, they can pop fully through the net and become un-tethered to our observable universe.
An unrelated aside: Presently I hold the unproven hypothesis that atoms are like knots of bungee cord loops. Given no outside influence, they will automatically attempt to find their lowest energy state.
It has the properties of both rubber AND gum
Cancer is also made of rubber.
Alright, don't forget to stop and fix world hunger on the way back 👍
We getting out of solar system with this one🗣🔥🔥
Wow! I am so glad the algorithm showed you! Thanks!
Hey! Thanks for the support!
Ben's videos are a great refuge from the crazy world outside.
Absolutely loved this vid. Thanks for putting in the effort even when you're not feeling well!
Sounds like rubber bands, the farther you stretch, the more resistant it gets.
Yes, the mathematics are similar (at their simplest!) to how rubber bands work. Then they 'snap' and other quark pairs are created from the energy.
Or a spring
@@Flesh_Wizard”A spring, a spring! It’s a wonderful thing! Everyone loves a Slinky!” ^.^
That's three of us who instantly thought of elastic & springs. And do we really know the strong force will or won't snap, allowing everything to fly apart or contract back to an equilibriam of forces
So, if the rubber band snaps, it creates two new rubber bands out of nothing (the Void)? How do we explain something coming from nothing just to maintain the status quo? It has to come from somewhere.
Note to 6 year old self: Don't take your dad's watch apart to see how it works.
Throw it against the wall. It will be much easier to explain off as an accident.
If it is a Rolex sub it will make a hole in the wall but remain as intact as a nun's hymen.
@@classicsciencefictionhorro1665
and if its a Rolex dom?
I took my dad's record player apart. Throwing it against the wall would have left it in a very similar state.
Hey, it doesn't work like that!
You can't send messages back in time, it would break causality
So your 6 year old self will never be able to see it 😂
@@Pseudo___ what is a Rolex dom?
I love these kinds of results in physics. Why does the strong force only apply at short distances? Because if the distance is large enough, the quarks just bond to something else. What else do they bond to? The quarks created by the energy you put into tearing them apart! Amazing!
8:32 Lev Landau looks about as happy as I’d expect after studying a ton of Quantum Chromodynamics
Protestors: "Free Quarks!" Physics: "THAT'S IMPOSSIBLE!"
"Retired particle smasher" thats got to be one of the best titles for a person.
Deceased watermelon smasher - Gallagher
Wait, why does the fine structure constant have 2 decimal points in it?
uhhh... did I mention I have a fever... 😅
My mouse click often pastes the same thing twice.
@@DrBenMiles Yes but, how come the fine structure constant?
@@DrBenMiles Well, my wife does say you're hot....
@@SlyNine Collateral damage
I learned more about particle physics from this video than I have from any other source, going back years. Wow. Thanks!
Thank you for this informative video, especially while you aren't feeling well. Thanks again, take care and get well soon!
Thank you!
Excellent video. I now have a greater understanding of the mechanics behind several things I already 'knew.'
0:23 Minor nitpick here, but the reason we don't feel the Sun's gravity is _not_ because the Sun is far away. Rather, it's because we're in orbit around it. When you're in orbit around something, you're literally in free-fall toward it, but moving sideways fast enough that you always miss hitting it. Since we're in orbit around the Sun, and thus in free-fall toward it, we don't feel its gravity, just like you'd feel weightless in a falling elevator. If the Sun were actually far enough away that we didn't feel its gravity, the Earth couldn't be in orbit around it. The same deal happens with the Moon's orbit around Earth.
So hypothetically if we werent free falling, what would be the g force of the sun from earth?
Wow, this one was so cool! I’m constantly fascinated by quantum physics even though I have only a surface level understanding. I really appreciate science communication that strikes the right balance between depth and comprehensibility.
Renormalisation is often seen as handwaving but it often to get around unknowns such as this, we renorminaise this effect most of the time, I imagine most of the renormalisation's we apply have some deeper properties that are yet to be explained such as this.
I assume you mean renormalization. I'm neither a scientist nor a mathematician, but I've seen the smoke and mirrors of renormalization in action. And yes, the infinities that arise should indicate unknown properties/conditions or some failure of the math. But, more typically, the renormalization is accepted without any concerted effort to find the deficiency.
@@triplec8375 Correct< I am a layman too with an interest, I Plan to go back and study in the next couple of years so I am just dipping my toes into the actual mathematical side. I edited the comment so people actually understand rather than to hide my mistake. I like to learn rom them not hide them ;).
@@nigelrhodes4330 I wish you great success in your future studies. We would all certainly be better off if more people could admit to making mistakes. There's no doubt that I make more than my share of them. Thanks for your reply. I can now boast that I know a Rhodes scholar
it still means we pretend to know while using work arounds...
08:31
Even Lev Landau himself doesn't look very happy with his pole. 😎
The coolest feature of the S.F. is JETS, that spray of particulate at collision sites, spewing forth powerful excitations of streaming matter.
Sorta like UA-cam.
"...it gets weirder" That's been my perception of physics every time I look at it, for many decades now.
This is a really interesting choice of topic for a video. I’m not a scientist but a keen learner, and the strong force often gets mentioned but never explained. Thanks for taking us on a deeper look.
that's because the experts can't solve strongly coupled quantum fields.
at the end of the day, that's what a scientist IS: a keen learner
WOW!!! Great video with wonderful graphics and understandable explanations!!! Thank you sooooo much for this! 🙂
Before watching this video I did not understand how deeply weird the strong force was. Thank you.
I loved the flourish at the finish. Nice one. 👍
Hi Ben, it was indeed coherent. I did not knew the work of Alexander Deur, I knew a little Stanley Brodky. Alexander Deur is in fact French, as I am, and did his PHD at Clermont-Ferrand University. I did not knew his role in experiments that led to shed light on the nature of strong force. Very interesting.
A nice "pictorial" introduction to Brodsky et al's remarkable LFWF approach to QCD dynamics! Always a pleasure to see more details of our work ( as theoretical physicists everywhere) brought out in understandable form for the public who supports it. I would merely caution (as you very likely know, and DO hint at) that Landau poles are likely, in each QFT, a result of our Standard Model ultimately being an effective theory (EFT) of the "real" underlying theory of nature which none of us know yet. One could probably state that our current theories are no more "wrong" than Newton's theories of mechanics, especially in a lay environment where the Standard model is often described as "sick" due to divergencies which are discussed by non-experts. I only hope I live long enough to much more of nature's fundamental law(s) uncovered in my lifetime.
Great intro lecture Doc. Have you every thought about a "limit" to the number of virtual particles in the void? And the possibility of changing amounts of energy required to snatch them into existence due to the density of the void (just 1 math part of the formula we don't know (completely))? And possibly as the universe expands an increasing amount of energy is required? So in the beginning it would take very little energy to pull them from the void (big bang).
Just thinking and by no means proclaim this as a theory or my beliefs as I haven't found or solved all the holes in it!
Best
*_OMG!_* 3:21
As a little boy _(I was odd, precocious, and read a lot. 'nuff said?)_ and fascinated by experimental physics, at some point I thought *"Woa. **_That's like firing an 8 cylinder engine against a steel wall and then looking at the pieces to figure out how it works!"_*
That was mid-1960s. I turned 70 last week.
Never ever encountered that analogy in the wild!
greets / thanks
--ben_
2^32-1, everything that can transform, can transform independently. So a photon can transform independently. If you held something down, all the tiny parts would rotate.
Not only he did great music with the System of a Down but he is an accomplished phisicist too
This is why I check the comments first
ESET has worked for me for several years. It has been 100% effective. It does NOT slow down my computer noticeably. I am NOT employed by ESET, nor do I receive any compensation for this post.
Yes. Same.
We need videos of clock accelerators smashing mechanical watches and showing high speed recordings of what exactly happens. But there are other chanels doing this kind of things.
0:44 I always imagined it as a a rubber band which when overstreched causes matter to pop out
It's a wonderfully useful analogy. It just doesn't translate to any physical process that we know of.
@@triplec8375 gluon flux tubes?
@@DrDeuteron Theoretically, yes. But we do not yet have an analytic proof of color confinement. Yet, I'm happy to stand corrected. Thanks!
Thank you Ben. Very interesting.
My first degree is in Math with Physics (60 years ago!), and I am still interested in following developments in physics.
I love your channel and you and another videoit was too long in coming ! Take care mate
when i fell for someone, that is the strong force, too. the farther away they are, the more i miss them and want them close.
wonderful as always -you should have 20 million subscribers!
Richard Feynman also got bested by swinging a bucket around in a circle. This bucket had a super fluid inside and was superconductive. It gave Richard a big headache upon striving to picture what was happening to the fluid inside the bucket. As you look out astronomically this is what occurs inside a neutron star. What is felt to happen is small magnetic pins run through the neutron star as the magnetic field is expelled from inside a superconductor producing these pins running through the star. A neutron star thus becomes more strange than we can imagine even before it is filled with strange material near the core.
Pretending for a moment that I actually understand what’s being said:
Is it possible that the bond between quarks only appears to plateau after a degree of separation while, in fact, the quarks are either incapable of separating beyond a certain distance OR that the first quark simply follows the other(s) OR, lastly, that an entirely new quark can be created to replace any quark which is moved too far away from its coupling?
Amazing how QM uses color theory to explain the Universe at a particle level. Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but Einstein's formula originally was derived to explain how to account for all the mass of a nuclear particle, in spite of the fact that quarks only account for a small %. Originally, the formula was m=E/C^2 which is far more important in thinking of mass in relation to energy.
Thank you for your videos, I am now hooked :)
I really enjoyed this. I'd like to hear more about the strong force within a nucleon vs the force between them.
I’m constantly fascinated by the intricate diversity in the universe of all these forces and once they were one. Bizarre! 😅❤
It is misleading to represent anticolors as subtractive primaries. For example, red plus antired equals black. However, red plus cyan equals white.
Also, your graphical depiction of gluon flux tubes is wrong. Check out what Sabina Hossenfelder has to say on that topic in her blog.
Yeah I was wondering about that, in art you mix color red and anti-red to get black so to speak with light.
Great video thank you for sharing. Hope you feel better soon.
At 6:06, You state that red and cyan make black. If you’re talking about the colors of light (not pigment, or paint): Red plus cyan (in equal proportions) makes white. My point is consistent with RGB= white, because cyan= G+B. (R=red; G=green; B=blue).
Fascinating insightful commentary. Is it known if the quarks that suddenly appear out of the void were always there or do they actually just pop into existence somehow from out of nothing? If they were always there is would be a finite classical universe as none have ever been lost or torn apart.
I am unsure why you don't have 20 million subs but here's one more and hope you get there. Amazing explanations
May the force be with you
Landau Pole... 1/3 whenever you see this number, think resonance. The standing wave has it's fundamental anti nodes at 1/3 and 2/6. Now look at where the plateau begins.
So as I understand this strong force it must have a form of F=k1*e^(x*k2) because it is only possibility to make such derivative: dF/dx=k3*e^(x*k2) possible to increments with distance as well as F=k1*e^(x*k2). Where k1, k2, k3 are respectievly constants and e^x is exponent. k1 is in unit [N], k2 [1/m] and k3 [N/m].
Brilliant video! I love this stuff so much. Who ever thought the humble proton and neutron would be so insanely complex! How far we have come. I remember asking my high school science teacher, if neutrons have no charge what's holding the protons together? He thought for a minute & said actually, I have no idea, the power of prayer?lol).
There are some interesting demonstrations using bubbles to model surface tension geometries. Some crude parallels could be shown to describe the boundaries between bubbles that represent electron obitals and atomic bonds.
In general, configurations that reduce stress define the final structure. Learning how to calculate those stresses will be the key to unlocking physics at any level.
The strong force is just another manifestation of stress in our universe. We just don't fully understand all of its parameters yet.
I was listening to StarTalk earlier this week and NGT was talking about this! And it blew my mind...
So even if there's a fall off a short distance but exponential resistance at longer distances, doesn't that mean the universe should be filled with and "infinite" amount of quarks?
Cause quarks/gluons "splitting" as they're pulled apart in a black hole should at least double the amount of quarks we have.
Am I understanding this totally wrong? This subject is so interesting, I would love more clarification.
If they are splitting and creating doubles of themselves while INSIDE a black hole, then they are contained within the event horizon of the black hole and cannot escape And since inside the black hole, the intense gravity prevents any expansion, it doesn't seem that there would be any splitting happening since splitting happens only when the particles are pulled apart.
I presume you mean at the event horizon - since nothing can escape a black hole. But no, consider - matter has to collapse to form a black hole in the first place. When a virtual quark/anti-quark pair manifest at the edge of the event horizon and the gravity rips them apart causing one to fall into the black hole and one to escape, the energy used to produce those new particles comes from the black hole itself - causing the black hole to shrink. Essentially Hawking Radiation is just releasing the energy of the matter that makes up the black hole in the first place.
Interesting. This is a better explanation how we wouldn't able to see individual quarks.
Somewhere on you tube I leaned than the mass of atoms was in energy.
Thanks for duplicating the idea here.
Please make the whole video explaining how that particle and dimension part and how it's related to graph data
Fundamental forces of matter:
1) Strong force = 1 with a range of influence of 10^(-15) meter.
2) Electromagnetic force = 1/137 with an infinite range of influence.
3) Weak force = 10^(-6) with a range of influence of 10^(-18) meter.
4) Gravity force = 6(10^(-39)) with an infinite range of influence.
Fundamental Force Concepts. Georgia State University, College of Arts and Science, Department of Physics and
Astronomy. 21 December 2012.
10^(-15) meter = 0.0000000000000001 meter = 0.00000000000000393701 inch
Have found this video totally randomly. The chapter names got me laughing hard) Loved it!
I love how people quote me on a daily basis. I was the person that introduced the idea that infinity in the mathematics means something has gone slightly wrong back around 2003. Before that nobody ever dared say that in physics. After that it is literally became dogma.
1983 just after my HS diploma. I told most of my friends whom all think me insane how time is false and the universe is infinite. I remain a socialist economics physics minor since.
The needing more energy to pull it apart as it gets further away reminds me of a rubber band, or those exercise things
particles must essentially be vortices in spacetime. The trick is to find the math to describe the stable shapes. Spherical shapes could oscillate in and out like a vibration but that seems like this would radiate, so it seems toroid's and higher order knots look like more promising geometries where the energy can be contained in a rotation of a thin string like structure with an external pressure from the fabric of space.
I like that picture of The Atomons. That's wallpaper-worthy.
Finally someone who knows what he is talking about ,thank You .
Fantastic presentation.
May be it historical, but gold .
We could not explain neither the boundary of atom nor that of proton.
Why collapse is it QCD spacing ?
Experiments can see when energy spill over
Situation is at all cost entangled .
Measurement problem with reference of statistics as defined. You are right w.r.t strong coupling digit after two decimal is for floating photons without mass. No mass below 1/3 of proton scale !!!
Thank you for your videos. You are a wealth of information.
08:05
_... but when they're pulled apart, the energy required to separate them increases until they're essentially impossible to move further away._
I once learnt that the energy is still finite but sufficient for the production of a complete quark- antiquark- pair, and you get mesons instead of separate quarks.
For example if you try to pull a red up quark out of a proton, a new red up quark will be produced alongside an anti- red anti- up- quark will be produced and yoy end up with the proton unchanged and you are holding a neutral meson in your hand.
Maybe, a down and an anti- down is produced, any you end up with a neutron and a positive meson.
I don't know if both can happen.
08:12
_This is called asymptotic freedom ..._
Isn't this called confinement, and asymptotic freedom is when the quarks are close together?
yes.
but a note on color--there really is no such thing as a "red" quark. QCD is invariant under color rotations, so it's just a quark of any color, or combination. It's like in atomic physics were we quantize angular momentum against the z-axis. The actual axis doesn't mean anything, but we need to pick one to do math.
*We frame everything for our prospective and we are very small limited thinkers. The only logical answer is we are only one of other infinite bag bangs. The universe is endless and time never had a beginning and will never end. The only changes is the conversion of energy to matter and back again, forever meaning the universe is never the same but always changing shape and form through space.*
Very good explanation of something I don't understand.
I asked this question elsewhere but: With the Big Rip idea of the end of the universe, could the pull of spacetime cause Quark pairs to split and capture new quarks, forming new pairs, which then also split, etc etc.? If that happens, basically everywhere all at the same time, could that runaway creation of new quark pairs effectively be a new big bang?
Just woke up on my day off and watched this. Mind blown .. rest of day ahead😅
Yep, the 5 Dimension i talk about little more wide then the one you talk about.
You have to understand Infinity different from math to Quantum math, things got other rules in Quantum math 5 Dimension.
5 Dimension are what i call it, "The non time existence in time."
In other words Infinity are not linear, you need to go into 5 D.
The Pythagoras Triangle 3A 4B 5C
When use infinity in Normal math this model breaks even when our logic says A B C are same value.
This are here my Ü make sense to use.
Going on to Infinity graph and the triangle reappear in simple term say'ed.
Result looks like this.
3Ü=A (A = 3 infinity long)
4Ü=B
5Ü=C
Normal graph and you can't see anything.
Also:
Ü*0=1
1/0=Ü
1/Ü=0
All this make sense in 5D rule system, it can even predict light entanglement. Einstein things lightspeed ... Dark matter and energy plus magnetar blackholes. At least give the tool to understand it.
👏🤩 I loved the ending
dude i adore how you started the video , i love you channelllll 💜💜💜💜💜💜💜💜💜💜💜💜💜💜💜💜
"magnets, how do they work?" i guess by shining light? @05:00
Another force that gets stronger with distance: force on an object attached to an anchored spring as it stretches the spring to a greater distances (until the spring breaks).
Uh, the force is constant - potential grows linearly though so it’s kind of like a weird spring that doesn’t fight back at you more but stores more and more energy. If I remember my string tension simulation correctly. Of course that one was merely a quenched simulation, but for the purposes of this computation is actually appropriate.
When I win the lottery, I’ll hire this dude to teach me physics … just no homework 😂
Excellent work from a great teacher 🙏🏽
Never mind the fever, you presented this with exceptional clarity. Thank you so much.
Actually take care of that fever, the world needs you whole and well.
The strong force works much like a string, and just like a string, it breaks at some moment. But the energy put in at that moment, does not go away, and results in new particles created. Not either will the energy put into the string go away, but in this case it results in vibration and heat.
"My full apologies, Mr Bond," Dr Miles rasped as he activated the diamond synchotron laser.
Bond won't be back in "the Infinite Solution".
(btw, my reaction to this vid is "Um .... What!?!" and "I'll need to watch this again.". *scratching head emoji*)
How do we know that electrons are not... symptoms or side effects of the strong force? The picture (towards the end) of a couple of fundamental particles bursting into new particles is blowing my mind right now.
muchas gracias por este video en particular, exploto mi cabeza
my bad... you can disregard my previous question... i should have watched further, wherein you share that the coupling constants aren't actually constant as they change with distance.
Strong Force:
for by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones, or dominions, or rulers, or authorities-all things have been created through Him and for Him. He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together.
Colossians 1:16-17
Kudos to Ben for all the information in the video! Did anybody told you, you look like Serj Tankian from Wish?
That could partly explain why backhoes and matter end up in the same neighborhood. But it doesn't explain why the blackhole has a big influence on normal matter. There's got to be another force that gets activated when normal matter collapses into a blackhole.
.... gravity?
Strangely, I feel better knowing there is one less "real" infinity! Thanks. I can prove time isn't infinite, but it would take forever to explain.
So the strong force when neuons are close to gether is weak but as they are separated get stronger would mean that there is a force that has an elastic resistance and when at its maximum distance is rigid
They should have asked a mechanical engineer. This is exactly the behavior of a spring. As you extend a spring the force gets larger and larger, until a limiting point where you cannot increase the distance any more - the spring is as its maximum extent. But then the material the spring is formed from itself deforms and the distance again increases. The spring is no longer extending, the material itself is extending.
I thought it was a given after the development of QCD in the 1970s that quark/anti-quark pairs were created and experimentally observed via jets. So the strong force could never be observed as becoming larger than that required to produce these quark/anti-quark pairs.
I typically like all your episodes. So what is that thing from which quark/antiquark pairs spontaneously emerge? Surely it isn’t really nothing?
Time and energy pushing us forward, gravity and the void pulling us back.