How Physicists Finally Solved The Infinity Problem
Vložit
- čas přidán 27. 05. 2024
- How does the strongest force influence our universe?
Check how ESET can protect you or your business and how they support science on this link: www.eset.com/uk/protecting-ar...
#physics #science #strongforce
Merch!
I think Scientists are Rockstars so I made t-shirts to celebrate it
Einstein Rockstar Tee: www.drbenmiles.com/merch/p/ro...
Curie Rockstar Tee: www.drbenmiles.com/merch/p/ro...
Schrodinger Rockstar Tee: www.drbenmiles.com/merch/p/ro...
Chapters
0:00 The Strongest Force in the Universe
1:45 Ad Read
2:54 How Forces Work
7:07 The Function of Distance
8:03 The Infinite Force Problem
9:06 How Physicists Solved the Infinity Problem
13:55 Conclusion
If you enjoy the channel and want even more physics, tech, and business content, I've just launched new Instagram and Threads pages. Follow on the links below
Insta: / drbenmiles
Threads: threads.net/drbenmiles
Newsletter drbenmiles.substack.com/
A few people have asked so I've added the info below. Some of these are affiliate links. If you make a purchase it doesn't cost you anything extra, but a percentage of the sale will help support this channel and my work to bringing entrepreneurship into science.
My camera : amzn.to/3ed5Xac
My lens: amzn.to/3xIAZyA
My lav: amzn.to/2SeE20Y and amzn.to/3nK33wA
My mic: amzn.to/3gUYYEv - Věda a technologie
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
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
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
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🗣🔥🔥
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.
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?
Protestors: "Free Quarks!" Physics: "THAT'S IMPOSSIBLE!"
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
@@FleshWizard69420”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
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.
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?
@@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).
Still, if you measured it and it’s zero it’s zero until you measure better.
@@luipaardprint The effects aren't zero; the discovery of dark matter/energy was made observationally (measured effects). The trend is toward better measurement.
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.
"Retired particle smasher" thats got to be one of the best titles for a person.
Wow! I am so glad the algorithm showed you! Thanks!
Hey! Thanks for the support!
8:32 Lev Landau looks about as happy as I’d expect after studying a ton of Quantum Chromodynamics
Absolutely loved this vid. Thanks for putting in the effort even when you're not feeling well!
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.'
Thank you for this informative video, especially while you aren't feeling well. Thanks again, take care and get well soon!
Thank you!
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
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?
Great video thank you for sharing. Hope you feel better soon.
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 CZcams.
08:31
Even Lev Landau himself doesn't look very happy with his pole. 😎
Ben's videos are a great refuge from the crazy world outside.
I loved the flourish at the finish. Nice one. 👍
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.
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
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.
I love your channel and you and another videoit was too long in coming ! Take care mate
Very good explanation. Thank you
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...
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.
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.
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].
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
beautiful explanation!
thank you!
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.
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.
Have found this video totally randomly. The chapter names got me laughing hard) Loved it!
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.
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.
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.
I really enjoyed this. I'd like to hear more about the strong force within a nucleon vs the force between them.
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 :)
Kudos to Ben for all the information in the video! Did anybody told you, you look like Serj Tankian from Wish?
*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.*
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.
8:55 The landau pole, doesn't go into infinity, and here's the proof.
If particles collide in a particle collider, they deform up to the point of breaking.
Essentialy the quarks come loose from the structure they were in,
and according to the landau pole, this would not happen, since the force
keeping them together would be infinite, preventing breaking.
However, the particles break, and thus the landau pole does not go infinite.
There's the fact that the forces keeping the quark structures in shape are dual.
One prevents increase of distance, the other prevents decreasing of distance,
both limited far below infinity.
For the Landau pole when a collision occurs, the only way to break the proton in
it's quark constituents, is to be very much finite, otherwise a fully elastic collision
would occur, not breaking the proton. Since they break => no infinite,
because the quarks can only emerge from the structure
if it gets moved beyond the landau pole limiting distance,
a truly dependant requirement for quark emission.
9:52 The testing done indicated that indeed the landau pole is more like a short fast rise
to a maximum, after which it won't rise much further.
Once the treshold is surpassed, the rise to maximum completed, the quark structure breaks,
emitting quarks as observed during LHC collisions.
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.
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
And yet another error. Strong force does not get "stronger and stronger" with distance. It reaches a fixed value of about 100 newtons and stops growing with distance. What becomes bigger and bigger is ENERGY, not force, stored in the gluon field between quarks, and in practice, this energy results in creation of quark-antiquark pairs.
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 !!!
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.
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.
What a great lecture! 👍
thank you, great job!
You got me at "huskier more nasal overtone bro." Cracked me up. Great show btw,
Great video !
I’m constantly fascinated by the intricate diversity in the universe of all these forces and once they were one. Bizarre! 😅❤
Before watching this video I did not understand how deeply weird the strong force was. Thank you.
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.
This is a great video. 👍
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).
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?
Please make the whole video explaining how that particle and dimension part and how it's related to graph data
I am unsure why you don't have 20 million subs but here's one more and hope you get there. Amazing explanations
the reason we use a fifth dimensional matrices to explain quarks and gluons is that quarks and gluons do not exist in a three dimensional world. these particles have to be ripped or smashed from the protons. we have practical use for protons and electrons in a three-dimensional world but not for quarks and gluons and if so, smashing them to release five dimensional particles in a 3 the dimensional world, that dog would hurt: " ... this is preventing quarks from ever existing in isolation" and they return to the dr. miles in the video refers to as the void.
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.
"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*)
The needing more energy to pull it apart as it gets further away reminds me of a rubber band, or those exercise things
dude i adore how you started the video , i love you channelllll 💜💜💜💜💜💜💜💜💜💜💜💜💜💜💜💜
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.
Just woke up on my day off and watched this. Mind blown .. rest of day ahead😅
👏🤩 I loved the ending
I read about this recently, and what immediately came to mind is....neutron stars. If alpha s levels off beyond the diameter of a proton (or neutron), what does this mean for interactions deep within neutron stars? Maybe something like quark soup? Crude analogy, but....
Somewhere on you tube I leaned than the mass of atoms was in energy.
Thanks for duplicating the idea here.
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.
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.
Finally someone who knows what he is talking about ,thank You .
I typically like all your episodes. So what is that thing from which quark/antiquark pairs spontaneously emerge? Surely it isn’t really nothing?
gluons are rubber bands. the more u pull on each end, the harder it gets to stretch it more, until it snaps with 'explosive' force.
It feels to me like another confirmation that the concept of "infinity" is wrong at its core. There are no infinitely small things (due to Planck limit), the size and mass of the universe are enormous but also finite. Roy Kerr just suggested a plausible way for singularities not to be a thing in the black holes. For me (who is neither a physicist or mathematician) it looks like a strong hint from nature that ∞ in math is a bogus construct. I'd love to someday watch a thorough video on this topic, actually.
Typical particle physicist response: throw mathematics out of the window, and "shut up and calculate ".
while chatting with an AI , i asked it to tell a story about multiplying itself by itself then adding something and re-iterating the process until it reached 0 or ∞ . i asked which it would get to, 0 or ∞. it concluded that 0=∞. was an interesting story.
@@sceptic33 I've used Chat GPT and some of the answers it gave were blatantly incorrect.
If you don't like infinity as a concept, you can talk to Doron Zeilberger and the ultrafinitists, When you get items like Landau poles that means the model has reached the extent of its usefulness. Even the Standard Model is only an effective field theory: you cannot push it too far. QFTs are normally riddled with infinities but this is an artefact of how you start the model. Renormalisation theory is a lovely subject, that you should read a book or two on to appreciate.
@@ianstopher9111 Why were the founders of QE so uncomfortable with renormalisation?
infinite acelleration eliminates time - time is inertia
infinite acceleration of space as opening sequenece af an infinite universe where planets are fed with stellar winds and stars and galaxies are fed with cosmic radiation - cosmic radiation origin by entropy
Question: If quarks can never exist "alone" due to the strong force's efforts to conserve the color charge, what are then the theoretical physics that make it possible for quark-gluon plasma to exist within like, neutron stars? I understand there, matter is under unimaginable pressures and temperatures, but still, it'd mean that at a certain depth, the star is made up of "independent" sea of individual quarks and gluons, just "milling about".
Or is my simple mind completely misunderstanding the concept of how such plasma works?
"The distance makes the force grow weaker" - The spring lying on my desk would like to disagree.
Question: why is the mass of deuterium roughly 2 and the mass of hydrogen roughly 1?
If the mass contribution of the quarks is 1% only, with 99% due to the nuclear force, shouldn't the mass of hydrogen (with a nucleus formed of a single proton) be roughly 0.01?
06:05
Isn't the anticolour to a certain colour also a linear combination of the two others, like it's depicted here (anti- red seems to be a combination of blue and green, just it is with actual colour mixing)?
These are cute names for the symmetries of the SU(3) group.
Nice, thx!
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?
You know, we all talk about and read about and listen to others about this stuff, but if you take a moment to really think about the idea that Nature is so rigid with its rules that even at the level of subatomic particles, a balance must be maintained to the extent that literal particles that were not there before must "pop into existence" to satisfy the rules is completely and utterly mind-blowing. It's PFM. I learned it in school. PFM is real.
(PFM means pure f'ing magic)
CME Shield?
Spacecraft have been deployed to study the Sun. The question arises: Is it feasible to position satellites in orbit around the Sun, synchronized with Earth's orbit, to shield our planet from a significant coronal mass ejection (CME)? The calculations involved would be intricate, as the satellites would need to predict Earth's location when the CME reaches its orbit. It appears that the closer the satellites are to the Sun, the smaller the required shield area. Power supply for the satellites wouldn't be the only issue, but the power needed to deflect the CME might be reduced if the shield operates at specific angles and wavelengths. Do our current technology and resources allow for such a venture?
I like that picture of The Atomons. That's wallpaper-worthy.
@9:30, using htop, i see what you did there ;o)
Very good explanation of something I don't understand.
11:00 A weakness of the scientific method as applied by humans: data is suspect, until you have a conceptual model in which the data makes sense.
Cause: best guess, the human inclination to cherry-pick data which already fits their current conceptual model.
Solution: teach physics students the results of experiments, without telling them why. Let them form their own conceptual models.
Potential Results:
+ More experiments we would not have previously thought to run.
+ A Cambrian explosion in the number of conceptual models employed by physicists.
+ New and more complete conceptual models.
They already do this... and also, a lot of times there _is_ an overlooked mistake in the experimental setup that needs to be found. It can litterally just be something like a loose wire plugged into one component of the detector.
Hiw do they accomodate for conservation of matter?
In Ancient Kemet they said "...Atwm came out of the NwN..."(where 'Atwm/Atum' would go on to become 'Atomos' and 'NwN' is the Nubio Kemetic word for 'space' that physical space comes from) modern ppl are just coming to a point where they can accept it.
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 ?
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.