Why Don't Protons Fly Apart in the Nucleus of Atoms? RESIDUAL Strong Force Explained

[@SabineHossenfelder]

I learned quantum field theory from Weinberg's books. He gives you all the maths and explains nothing about what it means. I wish I'd had your videos back then, you're amazing!

[@sillyproofs]

Oh Sabine! I caught you first! Never imagined Physics superstars like you would also have to go through such grunt work without intuition as well!

[@Darkanight]

I, on the other hand, was lucky enough to be introduced to it by very competent and didatic people such as Sabine, Arvin and Matt.

[@hoola_amigos]

No, You're Amazingg!!

[@NyteRazor]

So happy you exist.

[@andregustavo2086]

up

[@NoahFriedman]

I never realized the strong nuclear force and strong force were actually two different things, but this was a clear explanation. thanks!

[@1495978707]

Well that’s not exactly what he said. The strong nuclear force is still the strong force, but it is interaction between white particles due to them only being white on average, but fluctuating around that. It’s just like the Van der Waals force is really still the electromagnetic force, where charge neutral atoms are attracted because the distribution of charges fluctuates around the average

[@JoshWalker1]

@@1495978707 This was a useful comparison, thank you

[@sadovniksocratus1375]

ATOM. Atom = electron (active) + proton (passive). In simple atom, 99.9% of the space is empty, because the distance between electron and proton is 10^-10 m. But if one electron tied two protons, then the distance is 10^15 m. (closer to each other by as much as five orders of magnitude). The more complex the atom, the shorter the distance and its outer space tends to zero, while the inner field increases and becomes nuclear. All interactions (EM, nuclear, weak) are the result of the connection between electrons and protons and depend on the distance (and conditions) of interaction. These interactions obey Pauli's law: "There can be only one electron in an atom: simple or complex."

[@neps4th]

Only 1 electron ??

[@dimitriosfromgreece4227]

Yes yes super AMAZING 😊❤️🙏🙏💗

[@sidgar1]

Just for perspective, a proton weighs approximately 3.68x10^-27 pounds. 20lbs of force pushing against this mass is about 5.42×10^27 times the mass of the proton. That's 5.42 _octillion_ times the mass of the proton pushing against it. The mass of the Earth is approximately 1.3 x 10^25 pounds. Imagine a person weighs 130 pounds (1.3 x 10^2) The forces pushing the proton are roughly equivalent to having 10,000 times the weight of the Earth pushing against a person. It's mind-boggling how much energy is contained in the nucleus. It's no surprise that nuclear reactions release so much energy. (In this example, I'm using pounds but in KG or grams the ratios would still be the same.)

[@Mernom]

The fact that there's a LOT of nucleons out there also helps.

[@Ebenezer456]

Nice example!! But where does the force come from? I mean, how does it come about in the first place?

[@J4-kjtdr8775]

Wow and I thought an ant was strong, who or what make this kind of thing

[@MiroM84]

I am guessing that as people weaponised fission and fusion very soon there will be some strong nuclear force bomb and also a strong force bomb that would allow us to test the limits of physics

[@J4-kjtdr8775]

@@Ebenezer456 Science tells us more and more about how it works, but the who, what, and why and if there's some kind of intelligence or reasoning behind it remains a complete mystery

[@L2p2]

As a layman it took me this video to understand "strong force" and "strong nuclear force" are different ~~~ Thanks Arvin !

[@geoffreygresham6582]

Dismissing it with one made up word,, gravity……huh. Nice ok we’ll just skip that for now lol

[@geoffreygresham6582]

What about anti gluons or anti particles all together?.

[@geoffreygresham6582]

What about reverse moving tackions

[@virt1one]

very good explanation. I didn't quite "get" all of it but I did learn a lot. I think I now understand why protons stay inside the nucleus together, thanks for the video!

[@MaxxTosh]

Are you considering a video to explain the weirdness of Technetium, and why it is never stable despite being such a light element? I’ve never heard a satisfying answer!

[@ArvinAsh]

Interesting. I don't know much about this.

[@happmacdonald]

This is a great explanation, thank you Arvin. :) The question this leaves me with is why a nucleus only tends to be stable with a mixture of protons and neutrons. It's like there's a "sweet spot" in the ratio of how many protons and neutrons can make a stable nucleus for any given proton count, with a handful of less and less stable isotopes surrounding that preferred ratio, and then if the ratio is too far off the nucleus just isn't going to form in the first place.

[@Mernom]

I think that's because of there is too much positive charge in one place, it's a more energy stable configuration to eject the positive charge. Such interactions can happened without tossing out protons.

[@happmacdonald]

@@Mernom that only helps describe the "not too many protons" direction though. What stops us from having Hydrogen with dozens of neutrons in it though? 😁

[@sethrenville798]

Why are Oscillators within Conway's game of life only stable in certain configurations of squares? If you subscribe to the Wolfram physics project model of the universe, in which information is Fundamental, And all things within existence can be described as different confirmations of information that a fundamental, sweeping computation calculates from a probabilistic waveform of the future into a specific incidence of physical reality, generating information and turning the energy that used to make up The portion of the wave form that existed in all other possibilities into mass, driving our linear experience of time and entropy, both as by products.

[@BruceD1776]

"information is Fundamental" What exactly is information? Information about what?

[@gringo1723]

Compliments! Exceptionally expressed and displayed, also Your Feynman diagrams explanation is easily the best I have seen on recent KZbin postings. 😎

[@manojdhanji7776]

Arvin, there are few new things that I learned here. My 15 year old son also watched this video. He has an interest in physics and we often have discussions. He says he got almost all of what you explained. It's absolutely clear!

[@douglasboyle6544]

This was a great video, I never grasped the difference between the strong force and strong nuclear force. Thank you!

[@epiceducation867]

I'm a teen and thanks to you I just got a head start on quantum chromodynamics, keep up the good work👍

[@jamesbond_007]

This is GREAT! Thanks for explaining this so clearly Arvin! After decades of thinking I understood this stuff, my eyes are finally opened that the strong force != strong nuclear force, and now I understand what mesons are for (at least one of their uses). I always suspected there was leftover (residual) strong force, and posited that it may be responsible for gravitational attraction. And I never knew that the net color charge neutrality was a requirement. And, I thought the gluon flux tube would continue to be reinforced by the creation of more gluons -- I did not know that quarks could appear from the separation energy trying to pull a quart out of a nucleon. It's an interesting parallel between the strong force keeping things together because the color charge is constantly changing within the nucleon, and the strong nuclear force keeping nucleons together by an analogous mechanism of meson exchange.

[@mrcalico7091]

Wonderful Video Arvin! You were articulate at simplifying these complex interactions and still covered enough of the details to make it understandable. Love this one!

[@hansweichselbaum2534]

Absolutely amazing! For me, as a chemist, the smallest things in the universe are protons, neutrons and electrons.

[@DavidCarter-ib3vw]

Is there a way to make water out of hydrogen and oxygen? In case we establish a colony on the moon or Mars? Where will the water come from?

[@jimmyzhao2673]

@@DavidCarter-ib3vw I heard asteroids and comets contain a lot of water. Maybe lassoing and deorbiting them down to the colony could work.

[@nHans]

I like it that whenever you say "fundamental forces," you immediately clarify that they are "fundamental interactions." I too have started calling them "interactions." I now use "force" to only mean Newtonian force, that is, things that cause a change in momentum. Physics becomes a bit less confusing that way! Oh, and I've started saying that there are *_five_* fundamental interactions-the fifth being Higgs. After all, it accounts for fully 1% of the mass of baryonic matter-about 600g for an average human!

[@prich0382]

Gravity is not a force so it's quite confusing saying it's one of the fundamental forces aha

[@ivoryas1696]

Niranjan Hanasoge I was gonna ask what the Higgs Boson _does,_ but I feel like _he's got something for that!

[@nHans]

​@@prich0382 Here we go again. A lot of other people have said the same thing in the comments. And Arvin has replied to many of them explaining why we call gravity a force nevertheless. To save you the trouble of searching through the comments for his explanation, I'm copying and pasting his reply below: ❝ In physics, every force can be described as a gauge theory, which is a form of geometry. Gravity is unique among gauge theories because it is universal - it applies to everything. This is different than electromagnetism for example, because the gauge theory, or geometry describing EM, applies only to charged particles. This leads to interpretations by people who may want to impress you as "gravity is pure geometry." But it is still a force. Stand on a scale, look at what the scale says - 180 lbs? That's a force. Drop a weight on your foot (don't actually do this). What do you feel? That's a force. Furthermore, we know that General Relativity is incomplete. GR breaks down at quantum scales. Most physicists believe that a more complete theory of gravity, which would also explain its mechanism as quantum scales, would show gravity to be no different than the other three forces. And so gravity is typically referred to as the "force" by nearly all physicists. ❞

[@nHans]

​@@ivoryas1696 Arvin has uploaded several videos about the Higgs Boson (which includes the related Higgs Field and Higgs Mechanism). As have several others. You probably remember: The Higgs Boson - dubbed the _God Particle_ - was a big deal a decade ago, though now it's just another boson in the Standard Model. In short, all the particles of the Standard Model-except photons and gluons-have mass because of the Higgs Boson, Higgs Field, and Higgs Mechanism. Without Higgs, they would be massless and flying around at the speed of light. That's why I consider it as one of the fundamental interactions, alongside Strong, Weak, Electromagnetism, and Gravity. Note that the photons and gluons don't interact with the Higgs field. Consequently they are massless, and do fly around at the speed of light. However, the mass due to Higgs is only about 1% of the mass of the atoms and molecules that make up everyday matter. The remaining mass is due to the Strong Force. When the quarks are held together by the gluons to form protons and neutrons, and those in turn are held together by the various mesons to form atomic nuclei, all that confined energy manifests as mass. There-I just summarized several hours of watching Arvin's videos! You should still watch them though.

[@xxwookey]

That was quite a lot to take in! I'm glad you tried for the simplest useful explanation because it's already moderately complicated. I was aware of the existence of those particles and forces but this is the first time anyone has ever explained to me how they interact. Now I want to know how on earth people worked this out...

[@bengoody595]

Arvin .. thank you so much. Confession, I had to keep skipping back over the second half multiple times for this to sink in but thanks to you I now know what is meant by an unstable element and that it decays quickly. The strong nuclear force between protons is too far apart and thus the neucleus becomes unstable. This visualisation you've put together I am guessing is in it's simplest form but yet conveys exactly what you're trying to get across. Awesome video, keep up the good work! 😊👍🏻

[@PepeLeFix]

Wonderful delivery and use of graphics. Many of the mysteries of nature we reason about through our "math" becomes much less a mystery simply by people like you.

[@theultimatereductionist7592]

Things I learned in this video that NO OTHER KZbin SCIENCE COMMUNICATOR has ever mentioned and that I never heard of before: 1. There's a distinction between "the strong force" vs "the strong nuclear force". 2. 12:53 imperfect neutrality. (I have to re-watch to understand under what condition this imperfect neutrality occurs.) I am not talking about serious textbooks used by physics majors.

[@alwaysdisputin9930]

Veritasium's video 'Your Mass is NOT From the Higgs Boson' says imperfect neutrality is due to quantum fluctuations. I think maybe what's happening is the gluon field is constantly changing with particles popping into & out of existence. The fluctuations cause the neutron/proton to lose it's whiteness which it hates & so it immediately fires gluons to change the colour in order to restore whiteness but this changes the colour elsewhere & so it's like when I do a Rubiks cube: I do 1 side but it messes up the other side. This leads to a billion gluons get fired all over the place & the energy from these gluons gives everything mass like if you have (this is from PBS:) a box full of particles bouncing around & you try & push the box but as you push a load of particles strike the inside wall of the box & this makes it really hard to push the box.

[@alwaysdisputin9930]

@@lepidoptera9337 Why would spectra be fuzzy? How do you explain these gluon field fluctuations: kzbin.info/www/bejne/gGTbfaiQg7Cbors

[@theultimatereductionist7592]

@@lepidoptera9337 There. Corrected it to be clear what I really meant. Better?

[@theultimatereductionist7592]

@@lepidoptera9337 Yes you do, dearie. Otherwise you wouldn't have replied with your bullshit to my comment.

[@SerbanOprescu]

Excellent presentation. I understood a lot, I remembered a lot.

[@mdavid1955]

Very informative...A question, what happens to the Mesons? Would a Quark-Anti Quark annihilate each other🤔?

[@ArvinAsh]

Yes, but they last long enough for the inter-nucleon interaction to take place. The annihilation limits their reach so they are only effective at short distances.

[@SernasHeptaDimesionalSpace]

9:12 Faynsman quarks interaction needs a neutral part at the center where red and blue meet but still if this 2 quarks could meet they just will cancel each other like the charges of a battery as you touch each other and fires a spark.

[@cjtymczak4687]

Actually, the strong force holds quarts together, and it’s known exactly. The same is true for an atom and the electromagnetic force. The residual force is what holds nucleons together analogous to the residual of the electromagnetic force which holds atoms together forming molecules (chemistry). It’s a very complicated force which is still not exactly known. Now I do research in quantum chemistry, where we can calculate the interaction between atoms (essentially) exactly. The same framework needs to be attempted for nuclear interaction (lattice QCD is, but it’s an extremely hard problem)

[@ArvinAsh]

Thank you. I'd appreciate any other insights you might have through your line of work.

[@cjtymczak4687]

@@ArvinAsh Your welcome. Thank you for being an awesome science communicator and educator. Your always welcome to ask me questions, my specializations are many-body theory and electronic structure. Dabbled a bit with nuclear theory, but using empirical potentials which never seemed to work well. 😊👍👍

[@chriskennedy2846]

The 2 protons and 2 neutrons of a helium nucleus are packet pretty tightly. Makes me wonder if the flux tubes within each nucleon work like a subatomic version of the bonding orbitals between two atoms? In other words - in a water molecule, we can see the difference between how an H is connected to an O within the molecule itself (sp3 overlap with s to create a molecular orbital where the bonding electrons can reside in a lower energy state than if they were not bonded) vs. how H is connected to an O of a neighboring water molecule through hydrogen bonding. There appears to be a distinct difference in the two types of connections with Hydrogen bonding being the weaker of the two. And when we put enough heat energy into a pot of water - the weaker hydrogen bonds will break and the stronger molecular orbital bonds will stay intact and the boiling water will send off individual units of intact H2O molecules. So an H will feel the difference between its connection to an O in its own molecule vs its connection to an O of a neighboring molecule. So given the close proximity of a down quark in a proton to one of its own up quarks and a similar proximity of that same down quark to the up quark of the neutron right next door - how does it know to gluon flux tube with one and not the other and to meson exchange with the other but not flux tube? Is there a distinct difference "felt" by that down quark (much like the H in the water molecule) or in reality is it more like a molecular resonance structure where they diffuse out equally the gluon and meson interactions and form an energy equivalent grid much like how a resonance structure in an SO2 molecule doesn't favor one S-O bond over the other and we have 1 1/2 bond for each connection?

[@BaronLucid]

A well balanced 'introduction' to QCD Theory. My only thing I draw pause with was Mr. Ash's comparison of gravity with electromagnetic force. Gravity is not a force, it's a emergent property of time-space curvature.

[@jimmyzhao2673]

These animations are *fantastic* It helps me to understand things better.

[@rikarch]

Excellent introduction to a very complex topic. I have two questions: 1. You describe the strong force between quarks and the strong nuclear force between protons and neutrons as two different forces. Why do we not consider that this makes 5 fundamental forces (Strong, nuclear, weak, EM, gravity) rather than 4? 2. Why do quark/anti-quark interactions neutralize rather than annihilate like other matter/anti-matter interactions?

[@BryanWagner]

People like you, Sabine and others are my favorite educators. You make it so accessible!

[@fieryweasel]

Maybe everyone else already uses this, but the way I remember which quarks make up the neutron is pretty simple. A neutron, is down/up/down, or DUD; neutral.

[@JustaReadingguy]

Very well done. Now could you give the experiments supporting the theory? That would be very amazing.

[@ArvinAsh]

If you read the History section of this article, it will give you an idea of how this theory evolved including its validation: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_chromodynamics

[@protoword10]

No woder, for many people like myself, your channel is the most beloved on KZbin…

[@hardik.m]

If a meson is composed of quark antiquark pair, why don't these two annihilate each other as matter and antimatter do?

[@kethernet]

They do! But it takes time. A very short time, which is why they are so unstable, and thus can't interact very far from the nucleons. Also, only direct opposites annihilate this way, so only some neutral mesons do this. The others are unstable for other reasons.

[@ArvinAsh]

Aaha...great question! It struck me that I did not mention this AFTER we finished the video. They do annihilate, but they exist long enough that the inter-nuclear interactions can take place. And because they annihilate in a very short time, this limits the range of the effect of the strong nuclear force.

[@hardik.m]

Thanks Arvin and ethernet for answering my query

[@Channel_1728]

The amazing thing about all this is that as you "drill down" to what might be imaged to be a simpler world with fundamental partials, the clarity afforded by all this is not simpler or, "fundamental." It is more and more complex and not simpler and simpler. As I move to a greater understanding of all of this these fields and forces are incredibly complex, and nothing is getting simpler or more fundamental.

[@priyabratadash381]

Beautiful visualisation...... Nucleus is not in rest, to maintain its stability, it has to be dynamical, I mean the colour changes among nucleons is what forming the background of nuclear forces which is keeping the nucleus a stable system.

[@NitemareMoon]

Explaining quantum physics in these simple terms is very beautiful in its own way. Our bodies are the result of different colored forces keeping each other in balance at an infinite pace. Like a strange yin and yang

[@rushikeshkirtikar6147]

I come from a social science background and can understand your videos. It gives me a new perspective. It helps me to connect the worlds of science and social science.

[@parapeciarz7472]

That's a wonderful explanation! The best one i've seen so far

[@Akron162]

It must have been a massive pain in the ass to come up with all this. Much respect to the physicists that actually do it.

[@nurkleblurker2482]

This was one of the best explanations of something extremely complicated. Arvin is a better science communicator than Neil Negrasse Tyson.

[@declup]

N. D. Tyson, I've observed, tends to rely on charisma. I think his primary goal, perhaps only subconsciously, is to spark enthusiasm in others rather than to instruct. And so he often relies on a lot of emoting and imprecise hand waving. (However, to some extent, Tyson is limited by his preferred medium. He seems to gravitate toward interview-like settings, which make conveying the details of complex physical phenomena pretty difficult. Arvin Ash's scripted visual presentations are the better choice.)

[@san.cochado]

They are both great and do an equally important job within each's personal situation.

[@etownrule]

Learned something new today! First time it was made understandable to me. Thanks!

[@silaskuira9124]

Really appreciate the video. Went through atomic physics class without animation and it was brain hemorrhage. The strong and strong nuclear forces appear to be more of fortifications of fixed radii rather similar to how electrons have fixed radii from atomic nuclei.

[@meltingturret3208]

As always excellent! Higher resolution graphics also? Thanks. But is anyone curious as to why this process seems so complicated? How did the universe come up with such amazing combinations.

[@mattcero1]

Arvin and that Aussie are my Go-To's when I want to know more about science and the universe. Arvin's so good, they named a tray after him, the Ash Tray.

[@sinebar]

Maybe the Universe itself was some kind of particle that consisted of the four fundamental forces and all the mass of the current universe but at some point became unstable and decayed resulting in a gargantuan release of energy know as the Big Bang. So perhaps the key to a grand unification of the four fundamental forces is a particle model of the primordial universe. The four fundament forces combined in one particle with an unimaginable amount of mass.

[@liquidityjoey1158]

I think so too, but instead of a particle, it's a "flux"-like energy fractal plasma thing. The parameters defining this universe, are encoded in the forces, akin to the Hindu belief of their gods representing forces that make up the universe metaphorically.

[@dirkjensen935]

Brilliant video, I did quantum chemistry at uni and so all stationary state solution to the schrodinger equation. I've always been a bit scared to jump into chromodynamics, but this was actually such a good intro.

[@ProactiveForce]

Amazing!

[@Li.Siyuan]

Clearest explanation of basic QCD I've seen yet. Thank you!

[@lmiones]

Beautiful presentation of the standard ideas of ... the Standard Model! It has also many limitations ... I wish you would be available to present the new ideas: unification of interactions using the quark field concept and Theory of Gravity and Gravity Control ...

[@sacredkinetics.lns.8352]

Great explanation. 👶 Thanks a bunch.

[@unknownsources380]

Sir you explained in beautiful and gentle way that every one, even if one with not much strong basic concepts, could understand a very complicate concept easily.

[@MichaelBurnsGuitar]

Well I'm glad somebody understands it! Great videos, very clear with good visuals

[@WooliteMammoth]

You are definitely the best at simplifying complex topics for the layman to understand. Appreciate the thought that goes into this!

[@AliSher-ik8uu]

I really want the answer of the very common phenomenon WHY similar charges repel each other but opposite charges attract??? I really hope Arvin you'll make video on this topic.

[@ArvinAsh]

Quantum electrodynamics shows how this happens quite well. Essentially, this is the simplest way to think of it. Opposite charges create a lower energy potential between them, so the objects both move towards each other. Like charges create a higher energy potential between them, so like charges move further away. See this video: kzbin.info/www/bejne/rovUendnr7igZs0

[@AliSher-ik8uu]

Thank you so much for answering Whenever I ask such Questions to my teachers they avoid it by replying: "You'll study about it in higher grades so focus on your current syllabus rather than thinking about such questions".

[@Matt23488]

So, if quantum effects cause the gluon exchange inside nucleons to never be perfect, what about in a basic hydrogen atom? It has a single proton and no neutrons (yes isotopes exist with neutrons but let's consider the zero neutron isotope). What happens inside the proton? Does the lack of other nearby nucleons cause the color charge to remain neutral for the proton?

[@davidklang8174]

I know Arvin used the term "imperfectly," but it's not so much that the color charge cancellation is imperfect, but that there are always uncertainties involved. At the most fundamental level, this is all interactions between quantum fields which are never completely static.

[@ArvinAsh]

Great clarification. Thank you.

[@meneerjansen00]

Thank you for explaining this in as way that I _finally_ understand it.

[@wakkowarner7391]

Explained simply and I'm still going to have to watch this several times.

[@haleshs66]

Thank you for using the phrase "thought to be".

[@johnmckown1267]

I am confused by one thing you said at the beginning. That one of the forces is Gravity. Yet I've seen videos which assert that Gravity is _NOT_ a fundamental force, but it is the observed result of mass warping spacetime so that the "length" of spacetime towards the mass is "shorter" than the "length" of spacetime farther away, so that the path of the particle(s) involved are warped towards the mass. Or was this another simplification so that you didn't make people wonder about "where is the force of gravity"? Just curious. As always, very interesting. Wish I really understood.

[@ArvinAsh]

In physics, every force can be described as a gauge theory, which is a form of geometry. Gravity is unique among gauge theories because it is universal - it applies to everything. This is different than electromagnetism for example, because the gauge theory, or geometry describing EM, applies only to charged particles. This leads to interpretations by people who may want to impress you as "gravity is pure geometry." But it is still a force. Stand on a scale, look at what the scale says - 180 lbs? That's a force. Drop a weight on your foot (don't actually do this). What do you feel? That's a force. Furthermore, we know that General Relativity is incomplete. GR breaks down at quantum scales. Most physicists believe that a more complete theory of gravity, which would also explain its mechanism as quantum scales, would show gravity to be no different than the other three forces. And so gravity is typically referred to as the "force" by nearly all physicists.

[@pwinsider007]

@@ArvinAsh If location of a particle is probabilistic then there must be spacetime curvature probabilities associated with every location where particle has probility to exist and when wavefunction collapses then spacetime curvature probabilites also collapse to get spacetime curvature at a definite location. is this theory of quantum gravity?

[@d3tcovax]

@@pwinsider007 "On the fundamental role of massless form of matter in physics. Quantum gravity" by Kilmets A.P. has a great approach to quantum gravity that doesn't quantize spacetime!

[@iam6424]

@@ArvinAsh Sir, by more complete theory of GRAVITY do u mean a search, in theory or experiments, of "GRAVITON"?

[@____uncompetative]

@@pwinsider007 Look up 'Delayed-Choice' experiment

[@Davidletter3]

As a total amateur, this was the first video cover this topic I've seen that I was actually able to understand.

[@Whatisthisstupidfinghandle]

Ok, I learned two things today 1. How this applies to Neutrons. Never knew how this worked 2. There is a Strong Force and a Strong Nuclear Force. Didn’t know they were different things. 2a. But now I’m confused. If they are different things then why are there 4 forces and not 5. I don’t get it

[@ArvinAsh]

Strong nuclear force has a distinct mechanism, but it emanates from the same strong force that keeps quarks in nucleons. It is not a different force, just a residual form of the same force. If you see the latter part of the video, I explain why mesons form - it is because of a residual color charge.

[@Whatisthisstupidfinghandle]

@@ArvinAsh thank you ! I will try watching that part again

[@jasonwiley798]

But one big question remains: what exactly is color charge, and for that matter electric charge. Whoever figures that one out gets a Nobel prize.

[@DFPercush]

@@jasonwiley798 PBS Space Time has some good episodes about that topic. "What If Charge is NOT Fundamental?" "How the Higgs Mechanism Give Things Mass" (it connects to the whole symmetry topic) "Quantum Invariance & The Origin of The Standard Model" "Noether's Theorem and The Symmetries of Reality" I'd post links but KZbin is funny about that sometimes.

[@renscience]

Forces are not fundamental. It is typical media gibberish and even technical people get caught up in it sometimes. Forces are results of more fundamental things interacting as this video shows. Forces are an exchange of energy.

[@Petrov3434]

The BEST nuclear physics podcast on KZbin

[@anxious_robot]

yaaay. glue.

[@justinpakarno4346]

Arvin I really enjoy the way you explain complicated topics. You are a fantastic instructor.

[@ArvinAsh]

I appreciate that. Thanks for watching my friend.

[@limitlessme4446]

I've never seen anything more beautiful than this LOVE U SIR💯💯

[@nicholasivanderstoop4282]

There are explanations and then there are revelations. To cut through the Oort Cloud of my mind has exasperated many fine teachers. This symphonic explanation makes me understand at least the mechanics of the process. Created in the furnaces of stars. At age 82 I thank you sir for keeping curious. Nico❤😮 7:46

[@BrianSu]

this is very clear and easy to understand. Well done!

[@ArvinAsh]

Great to hear!

[@omniaosman5732]

I am in love with this. Even though, it is just an introduction to quantum field theory, I became in a whole new world

[@gene51231356]

Is an "antired quark" (one of the two quarks in the exchanged meson between two nucleons) the same as a "red antiquark", or is anticolor and antiparticles (opposite charge) two different things?

[@ArvinAsh]

Thanks for the question! Antiquarks are associated with only anti-colors. A meson which mediates the strong nuclear force is composed of a quark with color, and anti antiquark with an anti-color.

[@iam6424]

Is color a quality or a quantity in particle physics ?

[@infpail7232]

@@iam6424 Background: Bachelors in physics I’m not 100% sure how to answer your question. We refer to color kind of like how we talk about angular momentum or other quantum properties, so I would argue we treat it as a quantity. But (at least in my mostly conceptual particle physics class) we usually talked about it more as a quantity. Maybe people who specialize in the field or simply know than I do could argue why it’s definitely one or the other.

[@iam6424]

@@infpail7232 thnks... quantity seems abt ryt...Quality is more of a subjective thing....!👍🏼

[@infpail7232]

@@iam6424 yeah that’s the way I think of it but I wanna make sure I don’t give wrong advice so I wanted to leave it a little open in case someone more qualified can give more insight

[@enriquem.ortega3764]

Thank you very much for clarifying aspects that sometimes, for those of us who are not scientists and only knowledge buffs, leave us with doubts. Just while I was driving my car I was wondering if the gluons were also responsible for the confinement of protons and neutrons in the nucleus and thanks to your fantastic explanation I learned that no, that the mesons are in charge of avoiding the repulsion between nucleons. What I don't quite understand is what happens to the electric charge of the quarks in these transformations..Sincerely !

[@sergiomardinefraulob9803]

Very good accessible explanation to something quite complicated.

[@michaelclement1337]

Thanks for communicating this complex topic in a way that it can be understood by those who don't have a physics background

[@adriannuske]

You have the strange ability of making very complex stuff, attainable to the general public. Thank you!

[@robertschlesinger1342]

Excellent video. Very interesting, informative and worthwhile video.

[@kevindooley5934]

In the old-fashioned world of nuclear physics, the nuclear strong force was thought to be mediated by mesons. Although, in pre-QCD nuclear physics, they didn't know about quarks and gluons, so they built a nuclear potential out of meson exchanges, including a superposition of every possible type of meson. The problem with this model is that you need to include a huge number of terms from every possible meson exchange to get even close to the nuclear structure that is observed experimentally, and unfortunately that means a whole lot of tunable free parameters in the model. The QCD view does sort of emulate the meson exchange concept as Arvin describes, but QCD is actually subtly different. A lot of the nuclear force directly comes from quantum tunneling of quarks and gluons between the nucleons: quark exchange rather than exchange of real physical mesons. To put it another way, the exchange involves a quark-antiquark pair that are so far off their mass shells that it's hard to really say that it's a superposition of pi mesons and rho mesons and phi mesons and so forth. It's mostly just quarks and gluons popping back and forth between those nucleons, dragging gluons along for color balance. To be even more complicated, though, because pions are real particles that can be exchanged, they *also* contribute to the nuclear force. But if you think about the nuclear potential as just meson exchange, you don't really get the right answers. Caveat - I did my PhD thesis research on this topic, but it was a very very long time ago and I haven't kept up with more recent research.

[@ArvinAsh]

Thanks for that. You might find this article interesting. I have a future video coming on this: cftp.ist.utl.pt/~gernot.eichmann/2020-QCDHP/QCD-SCSB.pdf

[@kevindooley5934]

@@ArvinAsh Looking forward to it!

[@DavidFMayerPhD]

This identification makes the color analogy clearer. AntiRed = Blue+Green = Cyan = Complement of Red AntiGreen = Red+Blue= Magenta = Complement of Green AntiBlue = Red + Green = Yellow = Complement of Blue The "residual" force between nucleons caused by the departure from "color neutrality" averages is precisely analogous to the Van der Waals force that causes electrically neutral atoms to attract each other. Both are due to instantaneous displacement of the color-charge in the one case, and the instantaneous displacement of the electrical charge in the other.

[@JoeDeglman]

The other half of the electrons that normally decay out of 'neutron' and enter the 'electron shell' are still between the protons and 'neutrons' in a crystalline arrangement holding them together.

[@williamstephenjackson6420]

Very well presented! It actually begins to make sense to me now. Ronald G. Hadley was my second cousin and he tried more than once 😂 The explanation of the residual strong force is illuminating! Thank you!

[@sadovniksocratus1375]

ATOM. Atom = electron (active) + proton (passive). In simple atom, 99.9% of the space is empty, because the distance between electron and proton is 10^-10 m. But if one electron tied two protons, then the distance is 10^15 m. (closer to each other by as much as five orders of magnitude). The more complex the atom, the shorter the distance and its outer space tends to zero, while the inner field increases and becomes nuclear. All interactions (EM, nuclear, weak) are the result of the connection between electrons and protons and depend on the distance (and conditions) of interaction. These interactions obey Pauli's law: "There can be only one electron in an atom: simple or complex."

[@HiiImChris]

Wow ive never gotten into quantum physics myself, but this was definitely incredibly interesting and was easy to understand. In an a sort of comedic twist its funny how people despise the abstract conventions humans use to describe the processes here, but that abstract convention at its core its also in "electrical charge". People are able to grasp that better because they grow up with interactions and exposure to " electricity" which allows our brains to more easily condensate the nomenclature with real experiences and deeper understanding. In this case i believe many people fray away from this "next level deeper" because it's significantly harder to connect these concepts with things that are easy for our brains to understand (which is kind of not true considering its quite literally all the matter that exists, but you get what i mean). Anyways, got a bit ranty but thank you very much for sharing your passion and interest with us, this has definitely got me thinking and i may dive deeper!

[@magnusvesth1539]

As an electrician this knowledge is more worth than gold. It is a good help supplement to understand electric currents.

[@putzak]

another amazing video, thank you

[@Eleuthero5]

This video is my favorite explanation of QCD. Thank you!

[@suyapajimenez516]

You explain everything beautiful. The art work beautiful too. Thanks Arvin

[@BRANSKI-1911]

This is great! It is a simple explanation, yet very informative. Thanks for your work.

[@houndofzoltan]

The color analogy is very helpful when attempting to understand this.

[@djelalhassan7631]

Beautiful Explanation

[@DrSlipperyFist]

I've been thru all the school...this is better than any explanation I've ever seen.

[@DrSlipperyFist]

@@lepidoptera9337 You need to keep taking your meds. Your mom told me about how you get when you skip a day : )

[@DrSlipperyFist]

@@lepidoptera9337 People like you are always bold on the internet, but never have this energy in person. Definitely not expecting to have such an Interaction on a physics channel, so I'll just leave like this: I hope whatever issues you're clearly dealing with eat you up until you mercifully end it all by downing a bottle full of your antidepressants. No one will miss you.

[@robertschlesinger1342]

Excellent video, as always. Very interesting, informative and worthwhile video.

[@madhur732]

There is so much dynamic activity going on inside the atoms, which blurs the distinction between living and nonliving.

[@timwhite7127]

Thanks buddy...I always had a pretty good idea that I'm an idiot but you really drove it home with an interesting demo...

[@James_BAlert]

Good primer Arvin, l've read so much dry stuff over the years about it, that not much of it stuck and it was in many parts impenetrable!!👍😃

[@johnny_eth]

I''d like a followup to this video that explains: 1. why there isn't a helium atom with 0 or 1 neutrons 2. how big nucleus instability works, how that leads to the different kinds of radiation 3. why big unstable nucleus can'tbecome stable by just adding extra neutrons

[@larrygraham3377]

Thanks Arvin for another wonderful video. We learned anything like this when I was in school. It's so wonderful to gain new insight into the structure of matter. Your way of teaching makes learning fun and so interesting. Again, Thank You so very much. MAY THE FORCES BE WITH YOU !!!!

[@ArvinAsh]

Haha. Thank you. Live long and prosper my friend.

[@jayduchi8940]

Excellent explanation, I was confused for awhile, what color charge was & how it works. You have expanded my consciousness greatly. Most Impressive! 😃👏

[@sadovniksocratus1375]

ATOM. Atom = electron (active) + proton (passive). In simple atom, 99.9% of the space is empty, because the distance between electron and proton is 10^-10 m. But if one electron tied two protons, then the distance is 10^15 m. (closer to each other by as much as five orders of magnitude). The more complex the atom, the shorter the distance and its outer space tends to zero, while the inner field increases and becomes nuclear. All interactions (EM, nuclear, weak) are the result of the connection between electrons and protons and depend on the distance (and conditions) of interaction. These interactions obey Pauli's law: "There can be only one electron in an atom: simple or complex."

[@bigmackdombles6348]

incredible job! This is the first time I've understood any of this.

[@rayraycthree5784]

As a EE, I have always wondered why the proton cluster didn't fly apart but I assumed there was more to it, I never voiced the question, it wasn't volunteered by my chemistry or physics professors in the early 1970s and I never had the bandwidth before to investigate.

[@KavitaKumari-ot1ls]

Amazing. It really mesmerized me. Now, I wonder if there is any further explanation for the source of electric charges on electrons and protons and why neutrons are neutral?!!

[@Posesso]

Really really good. This I didn't know, and you explained very well, being a complex topic. Hats off.

[@radar536]

Amazing explanation. Thanks!!!

[@prschuster]

This gives me a much better idea of the forces in an atom. I majored in biology, so I learned enough chemistry and physics to get by. Quantum mechanics is a bit over my head, so this video really helped (without the math).

[@SernasHeptaDimesionalSpace]

10:30 to 11:11 diagram shows how a proton and a neutron interact with each other via the exchange of mesons anda again mesons are a combination of a quark and antiquark pair - we have a single proton up and a single neuton down at the bottom and time flows from left to right - keep in mind that colors must always be conserved: that is the 3 colors inside a proton or a neutron must be a combination of RED, BLUE and GREEN which combine to make a neutral color charge; let me clarify again that this is the same way that optical colors combine to make white color - to you color charge is just a METAPHOR to you From above diagram can say that you need of an electron to count with a NEUTRON due that with just the proton the neutron can not be at all- the neutron is the made from a proton and a neutron. If a quark and antiquark combine they just will cancel EACH OTHER at the instant. There is no cicle flow just left to right same as Penrose diagram wich is bottom to up side. RED and GREEN colors are PRIMARY colors while GREEN is a combination of YELLOW and BLUE so green is a SECONDARY color and still if you combine the 3 they will as well cancel each other. RED,GREEN and BLUE do make WHITE color in a television but not in real life - In real life red, yellow and blue form the white one and whene this 4 are brocken a rainbow is formed.

[@miketrissel5494]

If I was trying to explain the constant but slight imbalance in the nucleus, could I liken it to say, a third of 100, where there is always 1 oddball charged particle floating around? I'm getting old, and the somewhat 'fundamentals' need to be put together in pieces first. I love your diagrams. The actually seem to render an actual life force withing each atom.