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/

@omnijack

22 күн бұрын

Get well soon

@paulmichaelfreedman8334

22 күн бұрын

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.

@classicsciencefictionhorro1665

22 күн бұрын

You look healthier being sick than I do when I'm well. The strong force must be with you.

@meinkamph5327

22 күн бұрын

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.

@paulmichaelfreedman8334

22 күн бұрын

@@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...

@NavarroRefugee

14 күн бұрын

Yeah atom probably would have been a better word to use for the fundamental particles in retrospect.

@darknase

13 күн бұрын

Well for all intends and purposes in this world, applied Physics (chemistry) reigns supreme, and there Atoms are Atoms.

@rafaelgonzalez4175

13 күн бұрын

An atom can be split. Making that atom divisible.

@rafaelgonzalez4175

13 күн бұрын

​@@darknasetheir.

@Austin_Playz27

10 күн бұрын

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more generally of Quantum field theory), and only tell you that the perturbative expansion (around small couplings) is no longer valid, mathematically speaking.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.

@paulmichaelfreedman8334

22 күн бұрын

What happens is that beyond the asymptote, in reality, a new pair of quarks is created with the pent-up tension energy,.

@classicsciencefictionhorro1665

22 күн бұрын

And without being perturbed at the result.

@konberner170

22 күн бұрын

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.

@faikerdogan2802

21 күн бұрын

​@@konberner170althoughhe did say it was "finally" solved.

@user-dd4nx2js8x

21 күн бұрын

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.

@AjayInderchauhan

6 күн бұрын

If it increases at quantum distances than conversely should decrease at zero quantum distances .Why it's already at its lowest

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.

@paulmichaelfreedman8334

22 күн бұрын

Forget 56k, ask the ARPANet guys that had to make do with between 50 and 1200 bps.

@classicsciencefictionhorro1665

22 күн бұрын

I'm still using my Radio Shack TRS-80 computer. It is infinitely slow.

@triplec8375

21 күн бұрын

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!

@hilliard665

21 күн бұрын

Good hypothesis but you can never test it. Would be deemed unethical to subject any human to these horrors again.

@Epoch11

21 күн бұрын

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

@Unmannedair

22 күн бұрын

Precisely, at least it's a closed set

@harriehausenman8623

22 күн бұрын

I can't even count it.

@Daniel-jm8we

21 күн бұрын

Next year, CERN will announce that they've discovered the infinity +1 particle.

@harriehausenman8623

21 күн бұрын

@@Daniel-jm8we The Ultra-Higgs!

@jpkellerman7056

5 күн бұрын

♾️+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 😅

The Strong Force is made of rubber. It's that simple. Now I'm going to cure cancer, brb.

@HobbesNJoe

21 күн бұрын

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.

@Escobamos

20 күн бұрын

It has the properties of both rubber AND gum

@latt.qcd9221

20 күн бұрын

Cancer is also made of rubber.

@a.baciste1733

20 күн бұрын

Alright, don't forget to stop and fix world hunger on the way back 👍

@gracetonsanthmayor6687

20 күн бұрын

We getting out of solar system with this one🗣🔥🔥

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.

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.

@classicsciencefictionhorro1665

22 күн бұрын

If it is a Rolex sub it will make a hole in the wall but remain as intact as a nun's hymen.

@Pseudo___

21 күн бұрын

@@classicsciencefictionhorro1665 and if its a Rolex dom?

@tomholroyd7519

21 күн бұрын

I took my dad's record player apart. Throwing it against the wall would have left it in a very similar state.

@narrativeless404

21 күн бұрын

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 😂

@classicsciencefictionhorro1665

21 күн бұрын

@@Pseudo___ what is a Rolex dom?

Sounds like rubber bands, the farther you stretch, the more resistant it gets.

@tonywells6990

22 күн бұрын

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.

@FleshWizard69420

22 күн бұрын

Or a spring

@TheMemesofDestruction

22 күн бұрын

@@FleshWizard69420”A spring, a spring! It’s a wonderful thing! Everyone loves a Slinky!” ^.^

@Nailnuke

21 күн бұрын

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

@nicolaaslareman5391

21 күн бұрын

and in the end it breaks

The aspect of "science communication" that I despise the most is when bad, or simply outdated, ideas get passed off as being facts. This video is a fine example of this problem. Not being able to resolve the measurement problem doesn't mean a particle's mass or charge is "zero". It means we can't measure those attributes because, for example, the interactions that would reveal these attributes happen too quickly or are too small to be observed - currently.

@a.baciste1733

20 күн бұрын

I hear what you say, but one question though (and that's a real one, not trying to be the smart-ass here): if something is so small or so fast that it can't be observed, or we can't even detect the consequences of a potential non-zero value.. is it even worth taking it into consideration instead of pretending it's zero as a model?

@prescriptivereasoning

20 күн бұрын

@@a.baciste1733 Consequences being effects, yes because the effects (at scale) can be observed (e.g., dark matter/energy -both are quantum effects at cosmological scales).

@luipaardprint

19 күн бұрын

Still, if you measured it and it’s zero it’s zero until you measure better.

@prescriptivereasoning

19 күн бұрын

@@luipaardprint The effects aren't zero; the discovery of dark matter/energy was made observationally (measured effects). The trend is toward better measurement.

@perc-ai

7 күн бұрын

0 and infinite do NOT exist in the universe they are merely simple abstractions we made in mathematics to understand the universe. Gluons do NOT exist. This guy is telling you guys like its already confirmed as fact lmao.

Absolutely loved this vid. Thanks for putting in the effort even when you're not feeling well!

Protestors: "Free Quarks!" Physics: "THAT'S IMPOSSIBLE!"

Wow! I am so glad the algorithm showed you! Thanks!

@DrBenMiles

19 күн бұрын

Hey! Thanks for the support!

"Retired particle smasher" thats got to be one of the best titles for a person.

I learned more about particle physics from this video than I have from any other source, going back years. Wow. Thanks!

Excellent video. I now have a greater understanding of the mechanics behind several things I already 'knew.'

Great video thank you for sharing. Hope you feel better soon.

Wait, why does the fine structure constant have 2 decimal points in it?

@DrBenMiles

22 күн бұрын

uhhh... did I mention I have a fever... 😅

@ianstopher9111

22 күн бұрын

My mouse click often pastes the same thing twice.

@SlyNine

22 күн бұрын

​@@DrBenMiles Yes but, how come the fine structure constant?

@classicsciencefictionhorro1665

22 күн бұрын

@@DrBenMiles Well, my wife does say you're hot....

@thomasp506

22 күн бұрын

@@SlyNine Collateral damage

Thank you for this informative video, especially while you aren't feeling well. Thanks again, take care and get well soon!

@DrBenMiles

22 күн бұрын

Thank you!

Ben's videos are a great refuge from the crazy world outside.

8:32 Lev Landau looks about as happy as I’d expect after studying a ton of Quantum Chromodynamics

Very good explanation. Thank you

I loved the flourish at the finish. Nice one. 👍

beautiful explanation! thank you!

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.

thank you, great job!

I love your channel and you and another videoit was too long in coming ! Take care mate

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?

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.

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 KZread.

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.

Dr Ben, Why do you have 2 decimal pints in the digital number of 1/137? Look at timestamp 4:11. Is that a way of saying in-between? I've never seen that before.

Have found this video totally randomly. The chapter names got me laughing hard) Loved it!

What a great lecture! 👍

I really enjoyed this. I'd like to hear more about the strong force within a nucleon vs the force between them.

Not only he did great music with the System of a Down but he is an accomplished phisicist too

@dripcaraybbx

15 күн бұрын

This is why I check the comments first

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.

dude i adore how you started the video , i love you channelllll 💜💜💜💜💜💜💜💜💜💜💜💜💜💜💜💜

0:44 I always imagined it as a a rubber band which when overstreched causes matter to pop out

@triplec8375

21 күн бұрын

It's a wonderfully useful analogy. It just doesn't translate to any physical process that we know of.

Kudos to Ben for all the information in the video! Did anybody told you, you look like Serj Tankian from Wish?

This is a great video. 👍

Before watching this video I did not understand how deeply weird the strong force was. Thank you.

Great video !

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?

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.

@triplec8375

21 күн бұрын

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.

@nigelrhodes4330

21 күн бұрын

@@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 ;).

@triplec8375

21 күн бұрын

@@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

@szymonbaranowski8184

19 күн бұрын

it still means we pretend to know while using work arounds...

Nice, thx!

I am unsure why you don't have 20 million subs but here's one more and hope you get there. Amazing explanations

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).

I’m constantly fascinated by the intricate diversity in the universe of all these forces and once they were one. Bizarre! 😅❤

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.

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

Somewhere on you tube I leaned than the mass of atoms was in energy. Thanks for duplicating the idea here.

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].

👏🤩 I loved the ending

Just woke up on my day off and watched this. Mind blown .. rest of day ahead😅

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 :)

Very good explanation of something I don't understand.

Hiw do they accomodate for conservation of matter?

Please make the whole video explaining how that particle and dimension part and how it's related to graph data

You got me at "huskier more nasal overtone bro." Cracked me up. Great show btw,

The needing more energy to pull it apart as it gets further away reminds me of a rubber band, or those exercise things

Great explanation thanks! So once these quarks bind with quarks from the void, are they still attracted to their original pair bond? So if you stop applying force to pull them apart do they go back to their original state only now with these additional quarks?

amazing!

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.

Correct me if I am wrong, Dr. Miles, but isn't 'within a degree of 1% accuracy' insufficient within particle physics?

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 like that picture of The Atomons. That's wallpaper-worthy.

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 !!!

at 12:38: why are u and d- on the left and d and d- on the right instead of u and u- on the left?

I typically like all your episodes. So what is that thing from which quark/antiquark pairs spontaneously emerge? Surely it isn’t really nothing?

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.

Finally someone who knows what he is talking about ,thank You .

If quarks pop into existence when two is pulled apart in qcd, does that also works with particle collisions, and further, does that mean that some of the discovered particles at cern was created like that ?

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.

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.

Can the gravity gradient near the event horizon of smaller blackholes be steep enough strip protons apart and as the result of the kick from the creation of extra quarks, emit protons as form of radiation? Would this be a separate type of radiation from Hawking radiation, or just one of it's already predicted manifestations?

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.

@triplec8375

21 күн бұрын

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.

@TastySalamanders

21 күн бұрын

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.

I hope you feel better soon.

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.

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.

@rafaelgonzalez4175

13 күн бұрын

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.

Nice!

"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*)

So, shouldn't the strong force behavior be comparable to a spring?

@7:13 I'm confused! The Coulomb's law does not hold anymore? I thought we can trust Maxwell equations on a large scale. Is it a new discovery that the electrostatic coupling constant is decreasing with the distance? I'm eager for details!

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.

*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.*

The math of Quantum Chromodynamics is notoriously hard.

@9:30, using htop, i see what you did there ;o)

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).

Does it really "summon matter from nothing", or does it warp it on from somewhere else in space?

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.

When I win the lottery, I’ll hire this dude to teach me physics … just no homework 😂 Excellent work from a great teacher 🙏🏽

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.

So when you pull the apart that gluon would increase in energy yes? So what happens to that when it captures another pair of quarks? Is the mass and energy in the new quark pair the same as the energy from that bond that broke? Basically, how does this work with conservation of mass and energy?

@juliavixen176

20 күн бұрын

yes

"The distance makes the force grow weaker" - The spring lying on my desk would like to disagree.

Good video

Actually, quarks DIDN'T pop out; however, hundreds of unknown particles with unique properties did pop out. Our simplest consistent explanation for this is that all of these particles are composed of 2-3 quarks. Second, infinity and infinity plus one are exactly the same limit.

What happens inside protons and backwards in electrons to generate what we call positive and negative charge?

@DrDeuteron

21 күн бұрын

Not that.